| Author | Message | ||
| Darrell |
Grace Ambassador used this example: I ASKED A BAPTISM DEFENDER: IS BAPTISM FOR SALVATION? ANSWER: "NO". IS BAPTISM AN ORDINANCE OF JESUS TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN HE ORDERED OR IS IT PAST AS "LAMB SACRIFICE"? ANSWER "YES" IT IS AN ORDINANCE FOR TODAY QUESTION: IF THEN SOMEONE REFUSES TO BE BAPTIZED AND YEA, REFUSES TO BAPTIZE, OR DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THEY BAPTIZE SOME OR NOT, ARE THEY DISOBEYING CHRIST'S COMMAND? ANSWER: "YES" QUESTION: IF SOMEONE IS IN THIS TYPE OF DISOBEYDIENCE TO CHRIST, ARE THEY SAVED? ANSWER: "LET ME CALL MY BIBLE TEACHER" I am not the "BAPTISM DEFENDER"'s bible teacher, but I have a suggestion for how to answer. Paul says in Romans 14 that whatever is not of faith is sin. Therefore, someone who believes that Jesus Christ has called him to be baptized, and does not do it, is not acting from faith. Put another way, one who puts his faith in Jesus Christ will want to be baptized if he believes Jesus Christ has called him to be baptized. So the baptism is a fruit of receiving salvation, not a conduit of salvation. | ||
| Sherry2 |
Good thought, Darrell. Very interesting discussion as a whole everyone. Graceambassador, you're a Michigander? Didn't know....so am I....from the Grand Rapids area. If the Lord wills it, I hope to see a FAF started here someday...much more prayer needed before I enter that domain. Anyhow, great discussion. | ||
| Graceambassador |
Sherry: I'm from Holland. We're close. My son works for Tiara Yacths the biggest SDA company in the West Shore! He is a Sovereign Grace believer as I am and he lunges the top of his foot against their theological back soft buttom part everyday! (I do not feel is classy to translate that...) I'm actually from Brazil So. America (Portuguese Speaking). I've been a MISSIONARY TO AMERICA since 1989. I've been a TV man for most big shot preachers of America to the entire Portuguese speaking world. I had to leave a very good life and a very good country to come to preach to the natives of America, to obey God in this crazy uncivilized jungle! I've been living in Holland since 93 after living all over America as a minister for some independent Pentecostal organizations until they found out I'm a Calvinist. I speak English, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. I am a Michigander by CHOICE! Glad to be your neighbor! Neighborly greetings! Grace Ambassador! | ||
| Sherry2 |
Wow! What a history! Very interesting! Michigander by choice! All right! I see you are extremely brilliant too :) !! He-he! Michigander pride comin' through. | ||
| Patti |
Sherry2, Are you originally from the Netherlands? | ||
| Patti |
Sorry, It was Grace Ambassador that claimed the Netherlands. Waar woon je in Nederland? | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Patti: I said HOLLAND MICHIGAN U.S.A. TULIP CITY, 30 Miles South West of Grand Rapids. Land of the Hope College, which gave us Robert Schuller and others (what for???) by the lake! Not the Netherlands!!! Your dutch sounds like Greek to me!!! In my previous post, I mention the languages I speak, Dutch is not one of them! I know "I ain't much for not being dutch" but I ain't! I am Brazilian, living in HOLLAND MICHIGAN U.S.A.. Brazil was once invaded by the Dutch, and the Brits and the French, but I was so lucky not to be born one of them! Thankfully, we kicked them out of the country!!! Later we fought the Germans in Italy in WW2, and then gave them asylum in our southern parts. That's why there are so many blue eyed, lab rat skinned Brazilians And we always beat them in the Soccer (real Football) world cup! All of them! North of Brazil, in South America, is Suriname, which is Dutch, Guyana, which is British and French Guyana, which, guess? French! BUT I AIN'T DUTCH!!! But I can teach History and Geography! You may not learn theology in my posts, but you won't lose your education either! Your answer would be: ME HAVE NO IDEA OF VAT JU SAID!" Vat vos it?" Well, if I can't be a theologian, I try comedy but ain't quitting my day job just yet! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Loneviking |
GraceAmbassador (GA--is that O.K.) and Coleen: GA--no, I'm not in this to win a debate :). I've been on these forums and in debate clubs long enough to know that it isn't possible, nor is it profitable when studying the Bible. The goal is to search for new information through questions and study. I agree that it's mostly the lurkers who probably benefit the most as it gives them a direction to study too. Coleen--I agree with you that sacraments is a loaded term. I prefer the term 'ordinances' myself. Bill Tweese---I hope I'm not bogging the study down in minutiae. I'm not surprised though that this area brought such a response. The issue of sacraments or ordinances goes hand in hand with other issues such as church membership/liturgy and the culture of a church. What really caught my attention here was the seemingly casual way of treating baptism. Do you really, in your church, treat it as an option? Do you say, in effect 'well, so and so is here so they must be baptized in the Holy Spirit and we'll baptize them if we get around to it?' I'm really not being crass, I'm really curious if that is the way the Presbyterian church approaches things.... Anyway, I'll make my response and then get off my soapbox and let you continue on with your excellent study. | ||
| Loneviking |
G.A./ you asked 'who authorized Paul to say'... The short answer is Jesus himself and let me give you some verses to consider: Galatians 1:1,12,17. Start your search here and you will find that Paul was taught by Christ and given his commission by Him. G.A.--you also asked 'what power do these celebrations contain?'...my answer is that it is the power of judgement through the Holy Spirit. I know that some say that the results Paul talks about are from overeating. I say to them to read it again and compare it to the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Why did these two die over something as non-sacramental as giving? Look at Acts 5:9: Then Peter said to her, "Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well." My friends, that is power! You don't mess around and snub your nose at the Holy Spirit. As for water baptism, I would say a hearty 'Amen' to what Coleen wrote in her last post. Every time that we read of the New Testament church bringing believers in, baptism accompanies the account--doesn't it? Look at Hebrews 9:16-18 which speaks of the New Covenant and says, in effect, that it was inagurated with Christs death. After His death, the covenant couldn't change. Now, ask yourself why Christ came down and lived here and specifically ministered for three years? The answer, as I see it, is to bring in an example for the New Testament church and to bring in these new symbols of the new covenant. This includes baptism which wasn't practiced as John the Baptist was doing. I think it significant that Christ asked John to baptize Him even though He didn't need it! Christ sent His disciples out to baptize and it's part of the last message He gave to His followers before He went back to heaven. As to the issue of salvation, can we agree that the Bible commands us to baptize? If we don't baptize, and treat this as something optional, we are going against the express command of God. That is rebellion, which in turn is sin, and how in the world do you figure that you can be saved if you are in rebellion? Look at Pentecost--a day when undeniably the Holy Spirit was present,and Peter was preaching to this huge crowd of Jews. Look at the record found in Acts 2:37,38: 'Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Bretheren what shall we do?". And Peter said to them, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' and vs. 41: So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there wereadded that day about three thousand souls. Notice some things about this account--- 1. These individuals were required, by someone under the influence of the Holy Spirit, to be baptized. 2. The baptism was for the forgiveness of sins--isn't that salvation? 3. AFTER baptism, then the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed. A second, similar example is that of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch. How soon after understanding the gospel was this eunuch baptized? As soon as they found a body of water--look at Acts 8:36-38. With these two clear examples of the actions of the early church, I would say the onus is on G.A. and Bill Twisse to show why they treat the subject of baptism in such a casual manner. Where are the texts or the examples that contradict these two accounts that I've set out here? In closing, baptism is the way into the 'Eccelsia', and the Lords' supper is the regular reminder of the sacrifice offered. G.A., I disagree with you that God had Paul get something new going. I think instead that what we are seeing is that the Gentiles were willing to accept the concept of a life lived by Grace and the Jews weren't. The Jews wanted to cling to the sacrifices/feast days/sabbath that permeated their culture. The Gentiles were starting from ground zero, and they didn't have the cultural baggage of the Jews. So, Paul was able to go farther in his teachings with the Gentiles. O.K., I'm off the soap box, lead on Bill Twisse :) | ||
| Sherry2 |
Loneviking, you are right. It is part of the Great Commision - baptizing, and it is highly important. The thing that I have a problem with is entirely different that what you all have been discussing. What seems wrong to me is that in the SDA church, Baptist church, and some others, you must go through a whole class before you are baptized. Whatever happened to baptizing them, then teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever God has commanded. Instead, you have to agree to this list of things (that are more than the gospel) before you can be baptized. Now am I wrong, or is that wrong? | ||
| Graceambassador |
Loneviking: Thank you for your courtesy in answering. I said I will drop the subject. Let me, however, also thank you for making my point again: We really agree! "G.A./ you asked 'who authorized Paul to say'... The short answer is Jesus himself and let me give you some verses to consider: Galatians 1:1,12,17. Start your search here and you will find that Paul was taught by Christ and given his commission by Him. Once more, thank you for making my point! We then agree that Jesus does call people, FOR and IN the era of Grace "not to baptize". Sort of different from the original text of the Great commission isnt it? Perhaps a Revised Version:)). Would it be because that part left out by Jesus in Paul's calling and commission was no longer imortant? Whatever it is in Theology we have to answer why the difference in calling and focus so as not to lead people to the DARK AGES AGAIN. And the Bible does answer that. Christianity is mocked everyday by not providing answers and trying to explain away every single apparent contradiction and change of plan because people are afraid to admit that God does not change but progresses His plans in a way that does appear that He did! But I want to drop off the issue. To your own admission, this change from the Great commission indicates NOT THAT GOD CHANGES, indicates a STEP FURTHER in GOD'S PLAN. I never disagreed of what you said above. MY POINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RELEVANCE of the characteristic of Paul's calling in view of the Revelation he received. As you pointed out, Jesus called him and called him NOT TO BAPTIZE BUT TO PREACH! As to Salvation, our sotereology has differed since the 1st century. I believe that nothing aids Salvation. Salvation is of the Lord, "according to the pleasure of His will" we receive Christ and are given the power to be the sons of God "not according to flesh and blood, neither the will of man but of God". Birth is something out of our control and of our "will". I believe that this the ONLY thing the Bible teaches about Salvation. No additions, no subtractions! By the way, when was the last time you saw a "minister" pronouncing a curse on somebody for "lying about their donations" and that person dropped literally dead in the middle of the congretation? I guess we're not in Acts any longer. Am I crazy or God progressed into a "better covenant of better promises? I'm in Ephesians 2-8! And so are you!! THIS PART OF YOUR LAST STATEMENT IS BRILLIANT AND WORTHY OF REPETITION: I think instead that what we are seeing is that the Gentiles were willing to accept the concept of a life lived by Grace and the Jews weren't. The Jews wanted to cling to the sacrifices/feast days/sabbath that permeated their culture. The Gentiles were starting from ground zero, and they didn't have the cultural baggage of the Jews. So, Paul was able to go farther in his teachings with the Gentiles Again, I am dropping the issue for good! I am very familiar with the doctrines of the Church of Christ and other denominations which deserve my respect. But for me to agree with their soteriology is to deny what the Bible teaches! That from the start has been my concern. That's why I'm signing off this subject. I believe I am giving an IMPRESSION OF BEING SOMEONE I'M NOT! MY FAULT! I'M GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT I WANT TO WIN AN ARGUMENT! And may God be Graceful to me if I offend someone! I'd rather see my convictions stirring up some hearts, not Milt. Milt is irrelevant, but that which God gives Graciously to me should stirr people up! You're a good brother! I hope you Loneviking finds some company...so you won't be lone any more!:)) Grace Ambassador/Uncle MIlt | ||
| Sherry2 |
It seems quite obvious from reading 1 Cor. 10-17, that what Paul is addressing is the divisions in the church by who baptized them. Bragging about who's disciple they were, and therefore causing divisions in the church. This was about a pride issue, and he pointed them back to the cross and Jesus, the root of why they were baptised. This does not suggest in any shape or form that baptism has been done away with. It simply puts it into perspective by rooting out the pride issue and putting forth Jesus and the Cross as the head. We can turn any ritual, sacrament, ordinance, whatever you want to call these things ..into an idol. We must always extol Christ above all. The call of 1 Cor. 1 is to put the ordinance back into proper perspective. "For as many of you as wer baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:27-28 | ||
| Loneviking |
Well, G.A., I don't know how to take your response except to say that you are a very kind soul and it's really nice to be on a forum where folks don't want to beat up on you as a heretic! :) Yes, we have our differences, but we can still get along and study together. Isn't it amazing where ex-SDA's wind up? Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Seventh-day Baptist, Church of Christ---and forgive me as I'm sure I've left some others out. You would think that one denomination or fellowship would have a strong pull on folks coming out of the SDA church, but that seems not to be the case. Agreed, GA, that it is time to drop this issue and let Bill Twisse lead on in his excellent study......(BTW--I only get lonely in the summer when the wife and kiddies leave for vacation. But, we've been married for twenty years so it works for us....) | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Loneviking: Agreed, GA, that it is time to drop this issue and let Bill Twisse lead on in his excellent study......(BTW--I only get lonely in the summer when the wife and kiddies leave for vacation. But, we've been married for twenty years so it works for us....) Hey, my wife is going to Brazil too, perhaps sooner than I PRAYED, sorry, antecipated. She is taking the clothing we collect here for the missionaries there. So if you are around Holland MICHIGAN, we can be lonely together, fishing, and doing things except discussing theology. That would be working! If you do not mind the joke: I've also been married for 24 years. Next year is our silver aniversary. You've been married for 20 years... AT LEAST IF WE WERE IN JAIL, WE'D BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE!!! But... no such a thing in marriage!!! Sorry, ladies, I'm not a sexist pig! I love my wife and love being married to her. She loves me but, you know, not so much my jokes. I joke for my AMUSEMENT and everone else's AMAZEMENT! You are also a kind soul! I and other distingushed member of this list belonged to a discussion forum called "The Elect". The name attracted me bacause I believe that the Bible teaches Election and Reprobation. (Let's not start a new issue, please). But such list is run by an offshot of the Primitive Baptist, according the one of the list's members admission. They call you heretic from drinking grape juice instead of wine in the Communion! I know what you mean. Here the ambience is relaxed and no one has to prove anything to the other and we can still hold on to strong convictions! By the way, I am not a FORMER SDA, I was born and killed a Baptist. 25 years ago I joined a Pentecostal organization but they do not like my preaching because I tend to riducule Free Willers and do not accept that the book of Acts is still being written! I do not want to get hard on the Baptist because they are God's chosen people. And it is in the Bible. They will have PREEMINENCE IN THE "RAPTURE". Want proof?: THE BIBLE SAYS: THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST...! (another joke). I am more of a failed Jay Leno than a Billy Grahamm! Well, thank you for your Christian Spirit and kindness. Jesus did not say that the world would know we're His disciples by our theological positions. He said that the world would know we're His disciples by or love for one another. It does not imply compromise, but implies mutual understanding and pursuit of the best way to serve God and help one another! Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt | ||
| Loneviking |
Hey G.A.---I liked the parol joke! Brazil huh? Sounds like she's going to be gone a while. Where is Holland? I'm just south of Dayton, OH--and we get up to Berrien Springs, MI from time to time. I love to fish and be out on the water so we may have to do that some time. In fact, when the kids get back we are going to attempt (stress on the word 'attempt') to build a small Boston whaler from some Instant Boat plans. We have one of the biggest lakes in Ohio to try it out on! So Primitive Baptists use real wine for communion? I didn't know that--I knew that they used vocal music. There are a handful of those churches in this area..... | ||
| Graceambassador |
Loneviking: Holland is at 30 miles southwest of Grand Rapids. I live at 2 miles from Lake Michigan. You are about 4 hours from me depending on how you drive. These guys, as I said, were off shots of the Primitive Baptists. They followed a fellow that split from that fellowship and they call themselves now "Christians of Grand Rapids" or the "Detroit Church", no designation. They are KJV ONLY, call the other versions per-versions, people who read them heretics, offer only pure red wine in the communion (what a church!) and believe that the verse Jesus said: "do everything I have commanded you" means ipsis literis, ipso facto and ipso verbo. And Jesus did not commanded us to use organs and guitars in church. So, my kids are to them, heretics as Christian musicians. They take it to mean literally and if Jesus said wine, they take it to mean it was real red wine. I do not know if your neighbors preach such a thing, but these guys do! They also called me names, at least one of them, because I said that other translations of the Bible, such as the Spanish Bible, Portuguese Bible and others have better rendition than the KJV. They really believe that Paul preached out of the KJV! (I love the KJV by the way, but I am not like these fellows). Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt PS. before we get yelled at for using the forum for private conversations, you (and everybody) can correspond with me at Grace Ambassador I'm 48 (or an 18 year old with 30 years of experience) and would not like to be yelled at! | ||
| Billtwisse |
Hello everyone! Let me emphasize again that I have never seen such a gracious attitude among those who differ on potentially serious issues! The next study on 'sacred times' is a long time in preparing but will appear very soon. Let me quote one thing from Brother Milt again. It deserves to be stated over and over: "To stretch this (the communion) into a sacrament is going back to a time when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given." Nothing could better summarize what I attempted to state in my last study. The Old Covenant is sacramental (Heb. 9:8-10); the New Covenant is based on the finality of Grace in Christ and is sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I will restate my response to a couple of other points: 1. Water Baptism and the Lord's Supper are never connected in the New Testament in any way as parallel ordinances. They were instituted for entirely different purposes. Only the Lord's Supper is called a covenant. The seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. 2. There are more than two visible Christian practices that benefit our souls (other examples: giving, encouragement, love, confessing one's public error to others, forgiveness, prayer, teaching, assembly, etc.). To focus on these two as the 'commanded' ordinances in addition to faith is wrong. In response to Lone Viking, I am a Christian nonconformist. I am a member of a P.C.A. church but am not Presbyterian in belief. To become a member I only had to confess belief in Christ, the gospel, and the scriptures. I also had to submit to the authority of the church government--but I interpreted this to mean common faith issues only. You are right, in the Reformed tradition water baptism is not an option. I have heard it preached that if we do not seal our children with God's covenant (water baptism), we are inviting the displeasure of God in the same way that Moses did when he failed to circumcise his child! There is no form of water baptism that is as sure and certain as the gospel. Neither of the sacramental traditions can know for sure that its practice is correct. They condemn each other by implication. Yet, both are found in pre-Christian Judaism. Even the form of water that I would recommend to a believer is something that I think is closer to the NT practice, but I have no way of knowing with an absolute certainty that it IS the NT practice. It is not a covenant. God never commands something as a covenant unless the form is made absolutely plain. One other point: not all of us believe that the Holy Spirit is given only after believing or in response to faith. For those 'lurkers,' it is important to understand that there is more than one position on this issue. I will get into it more in a future covenant study. Now for: A 'Last Ditch' Appeal on Water Baptism It is not easy to oppose the weight of argument that has been established for many centuries. However, this is exactly what happened at the time of the Reformation. The established dogma regarding God, Christ, and salvation was overthrown and replaced with a return to the teaching of the apostle Paul. Not every argument advanced by each Reformer was perfect. However, the light of the true gospel was definitely restored to a large segment of humanity. The blessings of that revival are still with us today. The Reformation was limited to the doctrines of Christ, grace, faith, and scripture. On every other matter, the traditional dogma of the established church was largely retained. To date, we have never seen a reformation of the doctrine of the people of God. We do have many 'daughter' sects that have been established in the image of the 'mother' (Rome). Each one has its own system of doctrine and the differences are almost endless. But agreement on this point is certain: one or a few of them has to be correct. For the sake of our souls, we had better find the right 'church.' Sacramental baptism is well established from the second century on. The Lutheran confessions of Augsburg and Concord are eloquent in pointing this out. There is no question, either, that the historic dogma is that the water is required for salvation. Some evangelicals object to the sound of this, however, where is the basis? It certainly can't be found in the apostle Paul. The baptism described by Paul is certainly required for salvation, whatever it may be. The Pauline passages on baptism are as follows: Rom. 6:1-11 I Cor. 10:2; 12:12,13 Gal. 3:26,27 Eph. 4:4-6 Col. 2:11,12 & the infamous 1 Cor. 1:13-17. The Petrine passage on baptism (1 Pet. 3:21,22) should also be studied in the same context. I remember hearing a Lutheran expositor throwing the book at rebels like me with this one. With the built-up anger of many generations, he shouted loudly: BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US-- the word of God is unmistakably clear. I can only appeal to the above scriptures. I will let others study and compare to see whether they refer to Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism. I am absolutely convinced that all except 1 Cor. 1:13-17 refer to Holy Spirit baptism. So Paul does not even expound a theology of the water: it is merely a testimony to the Holy Spirit. The prophecy regarding Jesus in all 4 gospels is that he would baptize with the 'greater baptism' of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:26). That is the apostolic passion. It is rare that any statement is in all 4 of the gospels. Incidentally, 1 Cor. 1:13-17 is in direct contrast to Matt. 28:19. If the 'commission' to the eleven (the word commission is misleading) includes the water, Paul is exempting himself from it. As the apostle of the superior revelation of grace, he has no commission to baptize with water. Check it out. For those who do not believe that Paul was commissioned with a superior revelation of Grace above that of the other apostles, study him again. Read all of his epistles several times. The gospel of John is the only NT book addressed specifically to unbelievers. Although it emphasizes the eternal importance of believing, it never explains once about the duty to be baptized as a 'seal' of the certainty of salvation. Think about that. Didn't John miss something here? Keep in mind that the gospel was written (also 1 Peter) after John and Peter had accepted the superior revelation of grace given to Paul. It wasn't there yet in Acts 2:38. Whatever the meaning of baptism was in that context, it was a required as a sign of repentance for the Jews who had crucified the Lord. One final point from scripture: all of the water baptisms in Acts are administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The formula of Mt. 28:19 was not used! I will not elaborate further on this one: just wanted to throw that carrot out! I accept water baptism as a general custom established by Christ and the apostles by command, as a testimony to the greater reality of Grace and the Holy Spirit. It also was intended to separate Christianity from Judaism; hence first century Jews were to be re-baptized in the name of Christ. It is never commanded as an absolute duty for all Christians of all time. Unlike the radical anti-water people, I believe that it should be retained as a testimony. However, both sacramental traditions should be firmly rejected. I have already outlined why both covenant and submersion water baptism is not taught in the NT. Simple pouring of water in the name of Jesus will do. Even then, I can only recommend this testimony--not enjoin it as a required duty. There is no scriptural basis. I have studied all sides of this issue for many years. I read books by both Baptists and Paedo-baptists until I was blue in the face. These are my conclusions. --Twisse | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Bill: Without any comments, since I vowed to myself not to add any more explanation to what I had written, just let me say that I was jumping up and down and turning around for joy, (after all this is the meaning of the word "rejoice" in the Greek), as I read your post. Some time ago I made a study on the cronology of the N.T. to prove why some statements apparently contradicting, were made by Peter and James specifically. Your point on the timing of John and I Peter is the same as I made. A few months ago I told my family that I had found a label to stick to myself that I would not mind people using it: A Christian Nonconformist! I am glad that we both are such without starting a new denomination, but rather, helping other denominations without blindly agreeing with them. A new denomination is needed today as my shirt needs a back pocket, or a submarine a screen door! Jesus told the disciples that he had a lot to say, but that they would not bear at that point in time. But the Holy Ghost would take such role and teach them ALL things. I've been studying the Bible since I can read. Then I studied the history of the ek-klesia. I could never find anything that the disciples could not bear for the Gospel sake, either in their lives or in their ministry. They suffered for being eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. They died for the Gospel! I found however ONE THING that they had a problem with and it is recorded in Acts 15: GRACE. The new thing that God was now manifesting to men. The MYSTERY MANIFESTED, CHRIST IN US THE HOPE OF GLORY! Could Jesus, be referring to the Superior Revelation of Grace (Superior to the Jewish revelation) when He told the disciples that he was not telling them things that they could not momentarily bear? Since I found nothing else that has caused more controversy through the centuries, since the first apostles, even among those who do believe in Grace, but GRACE itself, I have to CONCLUDE, that Jesus was indeed referring to Grace. May His Grace keep us all together learning from HIM, the supreme teacher! Galatians 2:1-10 specially vs 8 and 9 - WE, US! Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt P.S. (joke alert...) All of you readers, please, do not worry about agreeing with me. When you're in heaven, you will know all things; then you will in fact agree with me...:)) | ||
| Joni |
Bill I often wonder why Matt. 28:19 is the only place where it says "baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" The rest say to be "baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ". Since you threw the carrot and I'm biting why is this? Joni | ||
| Steve |
Grace Ambassador, You crack me up royally! I must be in heaven since I find myself agreeing on some points! But I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly, so I might still be on earth. Or, it could be the middle of the rapture (2nd advent) and I'm caught in between. I've heard of churches that perform water baptism in the name of Jesus only, and had previuosly thought of that as not being scriptural, specifically based on the Matt. 28 passage. But along with Joni, I'll bite. Why? I agree with Bill, above. In searching out some of the Reformed denominations, I found that some of them refer to baptism and communion as "means of grace." I have a real hard time believing in various practices as means of grace. Here's one I'm currently trying to understand. Is prayer a "means of grace?" Does God bestow His grace upon me when I pray? Prayer is a time when we draw near to God. Does God bestow His grace upon us during those times, in ways He doesn't when we're not praying? Curious to see what y'all have to say. Steve |
