There is NO source to get doctrines and practices from other than the scriptures, as they ALONE were inspired by God!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Love Alone Saves (Part 2)
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, the message of salvation by physical baptism is a woefully twisted teaching that butchers the teaching in the Bible regarding baptism.
Teaching baptism as salvation makes salvation by works apart from grace.
The lie and wrong headed definition of grace by the church of Rome is sending millions of people to hell in a steady stream. Like ignorant lemmings they run headlong to their doom while trusting the church rather than trusting God and His holy word.
God sent them a reformation to repent and reform, but the Council of Trent was when the RCC nailed the final nails into their coffin!
Herbert, what don't you understand? When you present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a person and they say NO, I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, I can say by the Authority of Jesus Christ's own words that they remain under the wrath of God, condemned.
You just described every NON Catholic's definition of Faith Alone. The ALONE part means "This is the charity that accompanies faith. It's a charity of Christ, not of ourselves".
You will not find one "Faith Alone" believer that declares anyone who says they have faith are automatically saved just for saying so. James explains this very clearly. You who oppose the Faith Alone belief always ignore the true definition thereof, by those who hold the belief, and play a word game with Alone.
God declares that all who reject Jesus as their messiah are right now under eternal judgement and guity!
And as Calvin himself held with, we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that really saves us will not be found alone, without any evidence such as good works!
After all I posted about what the Church teaches about grace, how can you continue to lie about us? The RCC never says that baptism alone saves people, or even the other sacraments of the Church.
It all begins with having faith in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection - believing that He is indeed the Savior. Grace is God working in our lives. He works in our lives as we pray, as we live out our marriages, as we worship etc, in essence through those sacred things (sacraments) in which we believe. Grace is the free gift that flows organically from all those things. We do not do them to obtain grace, grace comes to us as we do them - freely and from God.
So stop bearing false witness against us, it cheapens your own walk with the Savior.
Last edited:
That would be nice if scripture said what you say, can you please show us that exact verse?
Instead scripture says:
1 Timothy 3
15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
2 Corinthians 3
2You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God <--That is holy scripture.
7But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones,
12Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
Look you got better chance to make up a new doctrine called "SOLA ENDURANCE ALONE".
James 1
4And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
PERFECT, COMPLETE, lacking in NOTHING.
I would be stumped.
But sola scriptura? NOPE not even an inch of indication. Not even a whiff of it being the "sole and only".
A long long time ago someone corrected you with scripture and POP, you figure that must be the rule.
Grace happens before you can ever believe, Adonia. Grace happens despite the fact that you are utterly wretched and are a rebel to God and His Kingdom.
Your actions take place...after God has extended grace to you. They are an after effect of God's extended grace.
But, you and herbert keep insisting you have a part in the process. If you have a part in it, then grace ceases to be grace. You must admit that your salvation came to you despite your utter antagonism to it. You fought against God, but He saved you despite your fight. God plucked you out of the stream that was flowing to hell, a stream you could not ever swim against, and saved you. That is grace. Please stop adding things to God's work as though you were somehow partnering with God on the issue. You were never a willing partner. God had to pluck you out of the stream against your will. His act of saving you against your will is what grace entails. His act of saving you despite the fact that you deserve to be left to float down stream to hell, is the essence of grace.
There is no bearing of false witness against you. You add your own works to God's. You nullify grace so that what you preach is not grace at all. You can pat yourself on the back in your teaching, but that flies in the face of Ephesians 2:8-9, which tells us that it is not your works so that no one can boast.
Adonia, stop adding to grace. Stop it! Your message is anti-christ.
The pharisees believe salvation by baptism was a joke too. Let me tell ask you what Jesus asked them:
4“Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?”
1 peter 3
20who 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. 21Corresponding 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,
Through the water. BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU. He says baptism is doing something other then removing dirt from flesh.
Matthew 16
16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
God's sovereignty can declare you are saved by rubbing your nose on a full moon. If he wants it that way it can happen that way.
Is Baptism from God or Man?
Baptism is divinely authorized. Don't worry if God doesn't want someone to be baptized they will drop dead before touching water.
Utilyan, either provide the entire section in its context or stop quoting scripture. Your proof text out of context is just abuse of God's word. If you wish for anyone to take you seriously, you have to take God's word in its context, not as a one sentence, out of context, prooftext. Get back to me when you can let God's word speak in its entirety rather than as your strained attempt to force your views on God's word.
Well does baptism come from God or man? Feel free to use any context you like. I'm letting you speak it for me.
I didn't have to quote Jesus asking that question its a good question. I want to know what you tell yourself about your baptism.
Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.‘"
This verse is often used to say that baptism is part of salvation, but we know from other scriptures that it is not, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, "repent and be baptized."
Also, please notice that there is no mention of faith in Acts 2:38. If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned? Simply saying it is implied isn't good enough. Peter is not teaching a formula for salvation but for covenant obedience, which is why the next verse says that the promise is for their children as well.
1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
This is the only verse that says that baptism saves, but the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?" or "Baptism corresponds to what?" The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 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. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." (NASB).
Some think that the baptism corresponds to the Ark because it was the Ark that saved them--not the floodwaters. This is a possibility, but one of the problems is that this interpretation does not seem to stand grammatically since the antecedent of Baptism is most probably in reference to the water--not the Ark.
But, water did not save Noah. This is why Peter excludes the issue of water baptism being the thing that saves us because he says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Peter says that it is not the application of water that saves us but a pledge of the good conscience. Therefore, baptism here most probably represents the breaking away of the old sinful life and entrance into the new life with Christ--in the same way that the flood waters in Noah's time was the destruction of the sinful way and, once through it, known as entering into the new way. Also, Peter says that the baptism is an appeal of a good conscience before God. Notice that this is dealing with faith. It seems that Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? | carm
This verse is often used to say that baptism is part of salvation, but we know from other scriptures that it is not, lest there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek, "repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized. Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God, that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, "repent and be baptized."
Also, please notice that there is no mention of faith in Acts 2:38. If this verse is a description of what is necessary for salvation, then why is faith not mentioned? Simply saying it is implied isn't good enough. Peter is not teaching a formula for salvation but for covenant obedience, which is why the next verse says that the promise is for their children as well.
1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
This is the only verse that says that baptism saves, but the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," "corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?" or "Baptism corresponds to what?" The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 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. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." (NASB).
Some think that the baptism corresponds to the Ark because it was the Ark that saved them--not the floodwaters. This is a possibility, but one of the problems is that this interpretation does not seem to stand grammatically since the antecedent of Baptism is most probably in reference to the water--not the Ark.
But, water did not save Noah. This is why Peter excludes the issue of water baptism being the thing that saves us because he says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Peter says that it is not the application of water that saves us but a pledge of the good conscience. Therefore, baptism here most probably represents the breaking away of the old sinful life and entrance into the new life with Christ--in the same way that the flood waters in Noah's time was the destruction of the sinful way and, once through it, known as entering into the new way. Also, Peter says that the baptism is an appeal of a good conscience before God. Notice that this is dealing with faith. It seems that Peter is defining real baptism as the act of faith.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? | carm
steaver,
It seems to me that we have at least four issues which are central to this discussion:
Issue #1:
You summarized this one when you said the following:
"This is why it is said that the RCC preaches another Gospel. And you would say I am preaching another Gospel or not the "full Gospel", which I reject that. The "full gospel" is rooted on this.... 'He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' Now if there be ANYTHING you want to declare is part of the "full Gospel" then it CANNOT contradict these words which Jesus Christ spoke. No belief in Jesus Christ equals the wrath of God remaining on those folks NO MATTER how much love they may be showing their neighbour or how much love they appear to have for a God."
So you're insisting that if a person does not explicitly profess belief in Jesus Christ during his earthly life, the wrath of God remains on him, period. You say that is our impasse. You say that to suggest someone "might" be saved without such a profession is to contradict the "He that believeth..." passage you posted above.
Issue #2:
Of this issue, I said the following:
"Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Christian instructed to *only* accept doctrines which are clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. Therefore, to judge others' doctrines according to whether or not you find them clearly laid out in the Scriptures is to apply a test of others' doctrines which fails its own standard. It's a self-refuting position, a performative contradiction." In other words, as one speaker put it, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Nowhere does Scripture, a prophet, or an angel of God reveal to the human race the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." To that you responded, saying:
"Wrong. (2Tim 3:16) 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' Why would a Christian accept anything other than proven words from God, Scripture?"
So it seems that you're insisting that Sola Scriptura is a truly divine doctrine, revealed by God. I disagree.
Issue #3:
Of this issue, I said the following:
When one "submits" to a doctrine only when he "agrees" with the doctrine, he's actually submitting to his own (fallible) judgment, and not Scripture (though he tells himself otherwise). He's convinced himself that he's clinging to an objective, revealed standard. However, such is not the case. This is precisely why you're utterly Scripturally convinced that Calvinism is, as a system, flawed. Meanwhile "MennoSota," apparently, thinks otherwise. Both of you maintain your conviction... But you can't both be right. Yet you both appeal to Scripture. So what is it that lies at the heart of your disagreement? Not Scripture! Rather, it's your own respective (fallible) interpretive paradigms, which you've mistaken for the direct revelation of Scripture, that account for your persistent differences.
To that you responded, saying:
"This is true, but it remains a fact that we BOTH believe there is an infallible Scripture by which our beliefs and teaching/preaching shall be judged. We do not forfeit our responsibility to study, to show ourselves approved unto God, over to a man made counsel which will tell us what we are to believe. We understand their is a possibility we could be wrong, which makes us study deep. Menno wants to hear 'well done, good and faithful servant' as do I. Whichever one of us is wrong, this wrong belief will be burned as wood, hay and stubble, and we will accept that, yet we ourselves shall be saved."
It seems that for you and "MennoSota," disagreement is acceptable. But there is something that both of you hold to, which Catholics reject, which renders our profession of faith in Christ null. So where exactly do we cross the line from agreeing with you in your mutual disagreement sufficiently so as to be accepted as fellow Christians and adopting doctrines which put us outside of the fold you've created by which you categorize the lost and the saved?
Issue #4:
This is the question which I originally posed: Why do you disregard what the Church actually teaches and cling to what any number of confused, disobedient, or ignorant people profess to believe? As I said, that seems to me a lot like looking to speeding cars to determine what the speed limit is... rather than the little white sign on the side of the road. What's your thought process behind all of this?
Also, allow me to speak to some of your most recent remarks:
steaver, Let me pose a similar question: "Have you stopped kicking your dog yet?"
Do you see how that works? And what if I happen to understand something that you don't understand? And what if you haven't ever kicked your dog? This doesn't get us anywhere. That's why we have to take the time to explain why it is we affirm what we affirm.
No, you can read the words of Christ to them. You can share the Gospel. But you aren't Christ's personal Prophet. You don't speak on His behalf. The words of Scripture aren't yours to apply as you see fit. You don't have perfect knowledge. You can't judge the heart of another person conclusively one way or another. God alone is the only one who speaks with finality. Sure, you can say something like "Well, it appears as though that is an unsaved individual." or you could say to the person "I implore you to take this message to heart and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. For He is the Savior." But to take that next leap and say "That person who's walking away right now is going to Hell." it's just not your place to say such a thing. And it's not mine, either.
Though we don't we "earn" anything by them, any works wrought in the charity of Christ are meritorious. For he can't do something without merit, regardless of the person through whom the work is done. And regarding your position here, if the charity accompanies the faith necessarily, then the faith isn't "alone." It's like a coin with its "heads and tails" sides. You can't say "This penny is a Heads Alone penny" and expect people to take you seriously when you explain to them something like "Well, sure, yeah there's a tails side, too, but it's actually a Heads Alone penny, even though the tails is still there, if you look to see, if... well, yeah... just like I said Heads Alone." You're playing word games if you say "It's alone! But it's not actually alone! But you can't add anything to it, well, even though it is necessarily accompanied by charitable works." What is all of this supposed to mean? Christ instructed us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Which one is it?
Wait just one second here, you recently said this:
"I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification."
Now you're saying this:
"You will not find one "Faith Alone" believer that declares anyone who says they have faith are automatically saved just for saying so."
How exactly do you reconcile these statements?
What it sounds like you're telling me is that the "true definition" of "faith alone" is actually "faith not alone." In other words, you call it "faith alone" but insist that it's not faith alone. Then when someone points this out to you you say that he "doesn't understand" what "faith alone" really means.
Meanwhile, the faith you describe is, all along, not alone, except for those times when, apparently, it is... times when you say things like this: "I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification."
And despite what St. James says here you are telling me I've got it wrong when all I'm really doing is affirming what St. James clearly states. As I see it, your problem is that you're attempting to uphold a "tradition of men which nullifies the Word of God," a false invented doctrine from the 16th Century which simply doesn't square with Scripture or reason.
If St. James isn't clear enough, what exactly would Scripture have to say in order for you to reject Martin Luther's invented doctrine? How much clearer could the Scriptures be?
"You see then that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works also."
In Him,
Herbert
It seems to me that we have at least four issues which are central to this discussion:
Issue #1:
You summarized this one when you said the following:
"This is why it is said that the RCC preaches another Gospel. And you would say I am preaching another Gospel or not the "full Gospel", which I reject that. The "full gospel" is rooted on this.... 'He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' Now if there be ANYTHING you want to declare is part of the "full Gospel" then it CANNOT contradict these words which Jesus Christ spoke. No belief in Jesus Christ equals the wrath of God remaining on those folks NO MATTER how much love they may be showing their neighbour or how much love they appear to have for a God."
So you're insisting that if a person does not explicitly profess belief in Jesus Christ during his earthly life, the wrath of God remains on him, period. You say that is our impasse. You say that to suggest someone "might" be saved without such a profession is to contradict the "He that believeth..." passage you posted above.
Issue #2:
Of this issue, I said the following:
"Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Christian instructed to *only* accept doctrines which are clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. Therefore, to judge others' doctrines according to whether or not you find them clearly laid out in the Scriptures is to apply a test of others' doctrines which fails its own standard. It's a self-refuting position, a performative contradiction." In other words, as one speaker put it, and I'm paraphrasing here: "Nowhere does Scripture, a prophet, or an angel of God reveal to the human race the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." To that you responded, saying:
"Wrong. (2Tim 3:16) 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' Why would a Christian accept anything other than proven words from God, Scripture?"
So it seems that you're insisting that Sola Scriptura is a truly divine doctrine, revealed by God. I disagree.
Issue #3:
Of this issue, I said the following:
When one "submits" to a doctrine only when he "agrees" with the doctrine, he's actually submitting to his own (fallible) judgment, and not Scripture (though he tells himself otherwise). He's convinced himself that he's clinging to an objective, revealed standard. However, such is not the case. This is precisely why you're utterly Scripturally convinced that Calvinism is, as a system, flawed. Meanwhile "MennoSota," apparently, thinks otherwise. Both of you maintain your conviction... But you can't both be right. Yet you both appeal to Scripture. So what is it that lies at the heart of your disagreement? Not Scripture! Rather, it's your own respective (fallible) interpretive paradigms, which you've mistaken for the direct revelation of Scripture, that account for your persistent differences.
To that you responded, saying:
"This is true, but it remains a fact that we BOTH believe there is an infallible Scripture by which our beliefs and teaching/preaching shall be judged. We do not forfeit our responsibility to study, to show ourselves approved unto God, over to a man made counsel which will tell us what we are to believe. We understand their is a possibility we could be wrong, which makes us study deep. Menno wants to hear 'well done, good and faithful servant' as do I. Whichever one of us is wrong, this wrong belief will be burned as wood, hay and stubble, and we will accept that, yet we ourselves shall be saved."
It seems that for you and "MennoSota," disagreement is acceptable. But there is something that both of you hold to, which Catholics reject, which renders our profession of faith in Christ null. So where exactly do we cross the line from agreeing with you in your mutual disagreement sufficiently so as to be accepted as fellow Christians and adopting doctrines which put us outside of the fold you've created by which you categorize the lost and the saved?
Issue #4:
This is the question which I originally posed: Why do you disregard what the Church actually teaches and cling to what any number of confused, disobedient, or ignorant people profess to believe? As I said, that seems to me a lot like looking to speeding cars to determine what the speed limit is... rather than the little white sign on the side of the road. What's your thought process behind all of this?
Also, allow me to speak to some of your most recent remarks:
steaver, Let me pose a similar question: "Have you stopped kicking your dog yet?"
Do you see how that works? And what if I happen to understand something that you don't understand? And what if you haven't ever kicked your dog? This doesn't get us anywhere. That's why we have to take the time to explain why it is we affirm what we affirm.
No, you can read the words of Christ to them. You can share the Gospel. But you aren't Christ's personal Prophet. You don't speak on His behalf. The words of Scripture aren't yours to apply as you see fit. You don't have perfect knowledge. You can't judge the heart of another person conclusively one way or another. God alone is the only one who speaks with finality. Sure, you can say something like "Well, it appears as though that is an unsaved individual." or you could say to the person "I implore you to take this message to heart and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. For He is the Savior." But to take that next leap and say "That person who's walking away right now is going to Hell." it's just not your place to say such a thing. And it's not mine, either.
Though we don't we "earn" anything by them, any works wrought in the charity of Christ are meritorious. For he can't do something without merit, regardless of the person through whom the work is done. And regarding your position here, if the charity accompanies the faith necessarily, then the faith isn't "alone." It's like a coin with its "heads and tails" sides. You can't say "This penny is a Heads Alone penny" and expect people to take you seriously when you explain to them something like "Well, sure, yeah there's a tails side, too, but it's actually a Heads Alone penny, even though the tails is still there, if you look to see, if... well, yeah... just like I said Heads Alone." You're playing word games if you say "It's alone! But it's not actually alone! But you can't add anything to it, well, even though it is necessarily accompanied by charitable works." What is all of this supposed to mean? Christ instructed us to let our yes be yes and our no be no. Which one is it?
Wait just one second here, you recently said this:
"I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification."
Now you're saying this:
"You will not find one "Faith Alone" believer that declares anyone who says they have faith are automatically saved just for saying so."
How exactly do you reconcile these statements?
What it sounds like you're telling me is that the "true definition" of "faith alone" is actually "faith not alone." In other words, you call it "faith alone" but insist that it's not faith alone. Then when someone points this out to you you say that he "doesn't understand" what "faith alone" really means.
Meanwhile, the faith you describe is, all along, not alone, except for those times when, apparently, it is... times when you say things like this: "I saith that by grace through faith alone I am justified, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that I be prepared and disposed by my own will to do anything else but to trust in the works of Jesus Christ alone for my justification."
And despite what St. James says here you are telling me I've got it wrong when all I'm really doing is affirming what St. James clearly states. As I see it, your problem is that you're attempting to uphold a "tradition of men which nullifies the Word of God," a false invented doctrine from the 16th Century which simply doesn't square with Scripture or reason.
If St. James isn't clear enough, what exactly would Scripture have to say in order for you to reject Martin Luther's invented doctrine? How much clearer could the Scriptures be?
"You see then that a man is not justified by faith alone, but by works also."
In Him,
Herbert
This thread exhibits what happens when you mix human logic and legalese with spirituality. We are spiritual beings. Trust the Holy Spirit. There is no greater teacher. Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." Keep it simple. Another brother said it best, he was more effective for Christ before he received all the letters after his name. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Matthew 28:18 "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven an earth." We can learn a little from our brothers, but it is a drop in the bucket to what the Word and the Holy Spirit reveals. Of our own abilities, it is very difficult to unlearn what we have been taught by men. Trust that ALL power is possessed by Jesus and let the awesome power of the Word and the Holy Spirit do it's great work.
Hello,"xlsdraw,"
I am glad to hear you chime in! Welcome to the conversation.
We may fully trust in Jesus (and receive guidance from the Holy Spirit) and still have conversations like these. It's not as though this conversation is the focus point of anyone's spiritual life. It's just a chat. We're just sharing ideas and perspectives.
And although we are spiritual beings indeed, we aren't strictly spiritual. We're rational. We have minds and hearts. We have questions, ideas, hopes, dreams. The fact that we are having this conversation doesn't mean that we're taking ourselves too seriously. Some people watch baseball as a way to kick back. Others work in the yard. Some people like to explore the realm of thoughts, beliefs, and ideas. None of that suggests that a person is "mixing human logic" with "spirituality" in some unhelpful way. It's just a conversation.
I see you call yourself Baptist. There is a whole lot more "human logic and legalese" wrapped up in that title than you'll find in this conversation. For we've inherited this discussion from those Christians who went before us. It's something all of us must accept. And there's nothing wrong with exploring our situation, sharing ideas (in charity and kindness), and trusting in God along the way. GK Chesterton, a man who became a Catholic as an adult, once said: "We all wake up on a battle-field. We see certain squadrons in certain uniforms gallop past; we take an arbitrary fancy to this or that colour, to this or that plume. But it often takes us a long time to realise what the fight is about or even who is fighting whom... Wait until you know what the battle is broadly about before you rush roaring after any advancing regiment. For a battle is a complicated thing; each army contains coats of different colour; each section of each army advances at a different angle. You may fancy that the Greens are charging the Blues exactly at the moment when both are combining to effect a fine military manoeuvre. You may conceive that two similar-looking columns are supporting each other at the very instant when they are about to blaze at each other with cannon, rifle, and revolver. So in the modern intellectual world we can see flags of many colours, deeds of manifold interest; the one thing we cannot see is the map."
In Him,
Herbert
So why is the Holy Spirit telling Baptists one thing and orthodox believers another as regards what God is saying through His Word, the Holy Scriptures? We both point to them in every way to prove we are getting things right.
[
Once again, this is only your opinion of what g
How many do I have to tell you we believe it is a free gift? Grace is not something that is constrained in only one place, in one particular way, as you seem to think it is. What you claim to be fact is only opinion, YOUR opinion.
Once again, this is only your opinion of what g
How many do I have to tell you we believe it is a free gift? Grace is not something that is constrained in only one place, in one particular way, as you seem to think it is. What you claim to be fact is only opinion, YOUR opinion.
Yes we are sharing opinions. Yours is generally based upon tradition and church teaching. Mine is generally based upon Sola Scriptura.
7 Key Differences Between Protestant and Catholic Doctrine
Good question, Adonia-
Let me chime in here to suggest a possible answer. As I see it, actually, the Holy Spirit is not teaching different Christians contradictory doctrines. Rather, people are confused about the way in which God has chosen to lead and guide His pilgrim People (Which, incidentally, is through the Church Christ established). The reason why it seems as though "the Holy Spirit is telling Baptists one thing and orthodox believers another..." is that each Christian group has its own traditions which contradict, at times, what the Holy Spirit is actually revealing to the human family through the Church as well as the traditions of other Christian groups. The problem for Protestants in all of this is that they often deny holding to "traditions of men" altogether. They think they are just following the teachings of the Bible. So when disagreement arises, they see themselves, even when they're wrong, as being right because they've mistaken their interpretations of Scripture (which are formulated according to their respective traditions) for Scripture itself. All of this is why Protestant Christianity is one of the most fissiparous things known to man. It's also why Hillaire Belloc once said “The bad work begun at the Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving.” How very apparent it is now that the very structure of our society is dissolving.
It's especially confusing to note that these Christians, who claim to accept no place for tradition in their doctrinal systems, and claim to appeal to the Bible Alone to justify themselves, avoid the fact that the Bible affirms a place for Godly tradition within the Church. Among other things, St. Paul himself had this to say regarding tradition: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
The irony, then, in a typical Protestant position (if there is one) is that Protestants are often found espousing beliefs which are themselves founded in part upon "tradition" while they dismiss others who espouse beliefs founded in part upon "tradition" on the basis that they found their beliefs in part upon tradition... because ultimately Sola Scriptura is itself a doctrine which is not found in Scripture, nor was it ever revealed by an angel or a prophet.
In Him,
Herbert
Last edited:
- Status