Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

[Jon-Marc]

Then why do the SDA believe in the fiction of soul sleep?

The word "sleep" in the Bible is used in reference to death. Jesus said that he must go and wake Lazarus from his sleep. His disciples misunderstood and Jesus was told that it would be better to let him get his rest. Then Jesus had to put it in simpler terms and said, "Lazarus is dead."

No, there is no such thing as soul sleep. The body dies, and the soul leaves the body for it's final destination--heaven if he's saved and hell if he's not. Eventually, hell, death, the devil, false prophet, beast mentioned in Revelation, and all those whose names are not written in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire, Rev. 20:10,14,15.

How can a body be "dead" if the life of the body (the soul) is still in it? That would mean that a "dead" body can be raised at any point. If the soul sleeps with the body, where is the soul when a body is cremated, or after the body turns to dust, or it's eaten by wild animals? Is that person's body inside the animal that eats him? Or in the sea life that eats him? The idea of soul sleep is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus speaking of Lazarus the person said "Lazarus SLEEPS I go that I may wake HIM".

Jesus did not say "Lazarus' BODY is asleep - I go that I may wake IT" -- as if there could even be such a thing as Lazarus the person being "awake" while his body merely SLEPT.

In fact as Paul states in 1Cor 15 and in 2Cor 5 - the body that dies - that decays - the "returns to dust" is NOT sleeping -- it is decaying - it is rotting. And we have ANOTHER TENT, ANOTHER Dwelling - that is made immortal "eternal in the heavens" that God gives us at the resurrection.

That is very differen than claiming that THIS tent SLEEPS and then is AWAKENED.

Such is never the case.

As Paul says regarding "THOSE who HAVE fallen ASLEEP" in 1Thess 4 "God will BRING WITH HIM THOSE who have fallen ASLEEP".

Impossible to imagine that decaying corpses will be flying back to earth with Christ at the 2nd coming.

Much better to accept that as a PERSON we HAVE a body. IT is "THIS decaying TENT" as Paul refers to it in 2Cor 5:1

 

[Melanie]

Jesus speaking of Lazarus the person said "Lazarus SLEEPS I go that I may wake HIM".

Jesus did not say "Lazarus' BODY is asleep - I go that I may wake IT" -- as if there could even be such a thing as Lazarus the person being "awake" while his body merely SLEPT.

In fact as Paul states in 1Cor 15 and in 2Cor 5 - the body that dies - that decays - the "returns to dust" is NOT sleeping -- it is decaying - it is rotting. And we have ANOTHER TENT, ANOTHER Dwelling - that is made immortal "eternal in the heavens" that God gives us at the resurrection.

That is very differen than claiming that THIS tent SLEEPS and then is AWAKENED.

Such is never the case.

As Paul says regarding "THOSE who HAVE fallen ASLEEP" in 1Thess 4 "God will BRING WITH HIM THOSE who have fallen ASLEEP".

Impossible to imagine that decaying corpses will be flying back to earth with Christ at the 2nd coming.

Much better to accept that as a PERSON we HAVE a body. IT is "THIS decaying TENT" as Paul refers to it in 2Cor 5:1

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet:for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible and we shall be changed. " 1 Cor. 15:52

My understanding is when the Lord comes again in Glory, the faithful shall be raised up body reunited with soul but our corruptible body shall be as was before the Fall of Man...before the evil of sin despoiled us.

 

[BobRyan]

In 1Cor 15 Paul says -
35 But someone will say, ""How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?''
36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;
37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Paul argues that a new body is given at the resurrection.

In 2Cor 5 Paul makes it clear that it is TWO bodies that are in view -

2 Corinthians 5
1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

 

[targus]

Soul sleep - more SDA fiction brought to you by the fasle prophet Ellen White.

 

[Emily25069]

back

Sorry I ducked out for a bit. Unfortunately, a couple weeks back I suffered a miscarriage and just havent had it in me to come check on this thread.

But Im feeling better now, so here I am.

Lutherans, like me do believe in salvation by faith alone.. In fact, I think we coined that phrase. But we also do not believe that believing that baptism saves is contradictory to this idea of faith alone.

In an adult convert, the gospel is first heard, then there is repentence, and then there is baptism. We are STILL told that baptism saves.

"This baptism saves you"
"All who are baptized into Christ are united into his death and ressurection."

I could go on and on. You all know the verses. You just sort of explain them away and believe they couldnt possibly mean what they plainly say because then other scriptures dont seem to fit.

Well, we Lutherans think they all fit, even if we cant explain it. We have to say that baptism saves, because the bible does.
We also believe that baptism doesnt save without faith. Otherwise, it would be wise to just spray down random people who you come across on the street. We are not stupid. We know that it does not work this way.

But in most thing God has done, He has attatched a means to it. The bronze serpent.. the burning bush.. even us humans who have a soul-well, he attatched that to something physical!! We are flesh.

When it comes to baptism, faith desires baptism. If we "get saved" yet despise baptism, are we really saved? me thinks probably not. I mean, the scripture says to believers "What are you waiting for? Rise up and be baptized!"

Baptism is more than just a bath or a ceremony. God has attatched his words to it-and those words are heavy with forgiveness language.

The bible is not lying when it says that those who believe are saved. That is true. My Pastor assured me before my kids were baptized that they were saved because they had heard the gospel and believed it. Baptism is given to us as an assurance--a pledge of a good conscience! Why would a meaningless bath of obedience give me good conscience? It only does so if baptism means something.. if baptism is what is described in the bible. When we start to realize our sinfulness and realize that we will never measure up-and wonder if God could possibly love us, we can look to our baptism. it is such a comfort. If we look to ourselves and how often we fall short-we question our salvation. Or at least I did. Its such a blessing to depend on God for my salvation, and not myself.

One of my favorite Lutheran radio shows opens with this description of a pastor talking to a christian woman, and I LOVE IT!!!!

"Have you completely dedicated every part of yourself? Well, what is the answer?

"thats the trouble, the answer is always no"

"Well, lets ask the question this way. Has Jesus given everything for you? Has he dedicated His whole life to you? Has He invited you into His heart? And the answer to that is a glorious, gracious, and conscious, freeing, COMFORTING YES. Only then we hear the gospel, that Jesus Christ came to earth, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, in our place, and died the death that we deserve, took on the full wrath of God. All that was done for us, so that we could be called righteous and holy in the eyes of God."


Its amazing stuff.. this grace. And I just dont think it gets more clear in scripture that if we believe, we ought to run to the waters of baptism. Its just an amazing gift from God.

As far as infant.. Im pretty sure nothing I say will convince you. It was hard for me to take in at first, after believing in believers only baptism for so long. However, as I studied church history and even just the bible, reguarding how infants and children were always treated (and the fact that this promise (of salvation in baptism) is "for you and your children, and your childrens children and all who are far off".. well, its for our babies too who we plan to raise in the faith, and dont be fooled, your children DO have faith-probably more faith than you do actually. I know my 5 year old just simply believes and makes a fool out of me sometimes. Childlike faith (which is the example given to us in scripture as the right kind of faith btw) is simply amazing. We should not deny our babies who will be raised in the faith baptism. Its very fitting. Its only right. Its what has been done since the beginning.

 

[DHK]

As far as infant.. Im pretty sure nothing I say will convince you. It was hard for me to take in at first, after believing in believers only baptism for so long. However, as I studied church history and even just the bible, reguarding how infants and children were always treated (and the fact that this promise (of salvation in baptism) is "for you and your children, and your childrens children and all who are far off".. well, its for our babies too who we plan to raise in the faith, and dont be fooled, your children DO have faith-probably more faith than you do actually. I know my 5 year old just simply believes and makes a fool out of me sometimes. Childlike faith (which is the example given to us in scripture as the right kind of faith btw) is simply amazing. We should not deny our babies who will be raised in the faith baptism. Its very fitting. Its only right. Its what has been done since the beginning.

Welcome back Emily. I am glad to hear that you are feeling better.
Let's take a look at the passage that you referred to:

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

There is no baptism in the promise. It has nothing to do with baptism. The promise is the gift of the Holy Ghost. This promise is unto "you" and to "your children" and to "all that are afar off" as many as the Lord our God shall call. The promise of the Holy Spirit is salvation. It has nothing to do with baptism.

Did the thief on the cross get baptized. Was he saved? Of course.
Baptism doesn't save anyone, and never did.

"The children" referred to mean descendants. That is the meaning. The sense is great great grandchildren and on down through the line, even to them that are "afar off." Think of it. Peter was speaking to the very ones that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

And now he says that your descendants will here this same message and receive this same promise of salvation. Now, over 2,000 years later they are still receiving the same message with the opportunity of receiving the same promises of remission of sins and eternal life.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Targus...

Bob Ryan said...

"In 1Cor 15 Paul says -

35 But someone will say, ""How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?''

36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;

37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

Paul argues that a new body is given at the resurrection.

In 2Cor 5 Paul makes it clear that it is TWO bodies that are in view -

2 Corinthians 5

1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,

3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

And you responded...

"Soul sleep - more SDA fiction brought to you by the fasle prophet Ellen White.

Bob Ryan quoted 2 passages od scripture.

1st Cor 35-38

2nd Cor 5, 1-3.

And his 2 brief comments are not problematic in the least, and I am a card carrying evangelical Baptist...not a 7th day Adventist.

I am just wondering...which of the 2 scriptures do you believe to be from Ellen White?

1st Cor 35-38, or 2 Cor 1-3?

 

[Emily25069]

"Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

When do we receive the Holy Spirit according to that verse? When we are baptized! Also in this verse, we are being baptized for the remission of sins.

When this promise was given, it was given to a patriarchal society.. so it would have been given to my grandpa and they would have been talking about my parents, and me, and my children.... and talking about descendents only proves my point. Salvation is for everybody who receives it. It is a free gift. We can reject that free gift of course, but it is given in the preaching of the gospel and in baptism and in the Lord's Supper. Its all a part of the same gospel.

And if you think of the jailer and his household, well, they told him before they had even met his household that his household would be baptized. Why would they do that? They had only talked to him. Why would they assume that his household would all become believers with him?

***************

"There is no baptism in the promise. It has nothing to do with baptism. The promise is the gift of the Holy Ghost. This promise is unto "you" and to "your children" and to "all that are afar off" as many as the Lord our God shall call. The promise of the Holy Spirit is salvation. It has nothing to do with baptism. "



The promise is mentioned directly after speaking about repentence and baptism. Repentence and baptism go hand in hand.

***************

"Did the thief on the cross get baptized. Was he saved? Of course.
Baptism doesn't save anyone, and never did. "

As I have said before, God is not bound to baptism, and receiving the gospel does save you without baptism--but baptism is also part of it too, not to be despised or rejected. Absolutely nowhere can you show me a verse that even remotely suggests that baptism is only an act of obedience. It always goes hand in hand with repentence and forgiveness. It is not just water. It is water WITH the word of God that makes it a part of the gospel. Just because the theif on the cross was unable to be baptized does not mean that baptism isnt a part of the gospel. I believe it very much is, and I am so very thankful for it.

The bottom line is that the bible tells me this is so...that baptism is for the remission of sins.. that I receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. that I am washed..., and baptists for years have been telling me that my bible doesnt really tell me this. I've brought these verses to many pastors, and all they really did was tell me that..."well, yes it looks like it is saying this, but it is really saying this." I started to feel that when it came to baptism, they were telling me to trust them over my bible.

And after a while, I just couldnt do that anymore. I, with my husband found a christian tradition that did believe scripture on this one.

And if you go as far back into church writings as possible, you will find no controversy on this. They all baptized babies, and they all believed baptism was God's gift for us.

I think what is probably hard for most baptists of the reformed mindset, is that you cant really have baptism saving you and the doctrine of OSAS.

There lies another mystery of the faith, because we know God will never leave us and we know that he is capable of holding us and keeping us.. but there are also verses which say that we can wander.. we can become prodigals.. and we can wander and never return.



*************



"The children" referred to mean descendants. That is the meaning. The sense is great great grandchildren and on down through the line, even to them that are "afar off." Think of it. Peter was speaking to the very ones that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ. "


uhmm... exactly?
*********

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

And now he says that your descendants will here this same message and receive this same promise of salvation. Now, over 2,000 years later they are still receiving the same message with the opportunity of receiving the same promises of remission of sins and eternal life.[/QUOTE]



Yes! And they are to be baptized for the remission of their sins!

 

[DHK]

"Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

When do we receive the Holy Spirit according to that verse? When we are baptized! Also in this verse, we are being baptized for the remission of sins.

The word "for" is the Greek word "eis" and has the sense here "on account of" or "because of". John the Baptist used the same word.

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:
--"unto", the word eis in the Greek, means "because you have repented.
John demanded that they "bring forth fruits meet (or suitable) for repentance. Unless they had repented first he would not baptize them. What do you think? Did the baptism produce repentance? No. He demanded repentance first. Then they could be baptized.

The same with Peter.
Does the baptism cause forgiveness of sin.
No.
First get saved, put your faith in Christ, have your sins forgiven, and then you can be baptized. Baptism is the last thing you can do. It is only after one puts their faith in Christ that they can be baptized. And that is the meaning of the verse. One must look carefully at the Greek usage of the word "eis" to determine the meaning here.

When this promise was given, it was given to a patriarchal society.. so it would have been given to my grandpa and they would have been talking about my parents, and me, and my children.... and talking about descendents only proves my point. Salvation is for everybody who receives it. It is a free gift. We can reject that free gift of course, but it is given in the preaching of the gospel and in baptism and in the Lord's Supper. Its all a part of the same gospel.

The fact that even you admit it is for all who receives it...a free gift...one can reject it means that you must realize it is not for infants and never can be. Only those who can exercise faith and understand the gospel can be saved, and then baptized. But salvation is not in baptism. It is by faith and faith alone in Christ. Christ is the object of our faith. If you believe that baptism is required for salvation then you have no salvation at all. Only Christ can save. He said: "I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me."
One cannot come to the Father by baptism. Christ is the only way. If you try to come through baptism you will fall short, and fall short of going to heaven. Trusting in your baptism will not get you to heaven. It will send you to hell (you as in anyone).

And if you think of the jailer and his household, well, they told him before they had even met his household that his household would be baptized. Why would they do that? They had only talked to him. Why would they assume that his household would all become believers with him?

The jailor was already 60 years old, and his wife 59. All of his 4 children were grown up and now married. But as yet there were no infants or small ones in the house. They had a pet dog, but they didn't baptize it.
How do I know this? The same way that you know there were infants. You can't read into the Scripture things that are not there.

"There is no baptism in the promise. It has nothing to do with baptism. The promise is the gift of the Holy Ghost. This promise is unto "you" and to "your children" and to "all that are afar off" as many as the Lord our God shall call. The promise of the Holy Spirit is salvation. It has nothing to do with baptism. "

The promise is mentioned directly after speaking about repentence and baptism. Repentence and baptism go hand in hand.

Yes, just as it was with John the Baptist.
Repent first; then be baptized.
Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin.
When one believes in Christ and is saved, he also has repented. In other words baptism always follows "repentance" or salvation, and is never a part of it.

"Did the thief on the cross get baptized. Was he saved? Of course.
Baptism doesn't save anyone, and never did. "

As I have said before, God is not bound to baptism, and receiving the gospel does save you without baptism--but baptism is also part of it too, not to be despised or rejected. Absolutely nowhere can you show me a verse that even remotely suggests that baptism is only an act of obedience. It always goes hand in hand with repentence and forgiveness. It is not just water. It is water WITH the word of God that makes it a part of the gospel. Just because the theif on the cross was unable to be baptized does not mean that baptism isnt a part of the gospel. I believe it very much is, and I am so very thankful for it.

So you have to change your theology just when it is convenient for you, or when it contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible.
GOD IS NOT BOUND!! You arrogantly say, even as it contradicts your theology that baptism saves. It defeats your theology. So you simply say "God is not bound to RCC theology." How lame is that?? Is that how you slip out of every theological loophole? Baptism doesn't save, as is so clearly taught by the thief on the cross and by Jesus Himself.

Jeremiah made a mockery of baptism or water saving anyone:
Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Are you also thankful for Jeremiah's words?

The bottom line is that the bible tells me this is so...that baptism is for the remission of sins..

The Bible doesn't say that. It says to be baptized because your sins have been remitted.

that I receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. that I am washed...,

That only comes by faith in Christ and his atoning sacrifice: by faith and faith alone.

and baptists for years have been telling me that my bible doesnt really tell me this. I've brought these verses to many pastors, and all they really did was tell me that..."well, yes it looks like it is saying this, but it is really saying this." I started to feel that when it came to baptism, they were telling me to trust them over my bible.

Maybe you should have listened to them a bit closer and studied your Bible a bit more. Now you listen to false teachers?

And after a while, I just couldnt do that anymore. I, with my husband found a christian tradition that did believe scripture on this one.

Jesus condemned those who trust in tradition.

And if you go as far back into church writings as possible, you will find no controversy on this. They all baptized babies, and they all believed baptism was God's gift for us.

I don't need to read about heretics. Show me one example of one infant in the Bible being baptized--just one.

I think what is probably hard for most baptists of the reformed mindset, is that you cant really have baptism saving you and the doctrine of OSAS.

Did Jesus lie when he said "I give unto you eternal life"? How long is eternal? When does it end? If eternal can end at any time what does it become?
Two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen does nothing but get you wet. That is what baptism does--it gets you wet. And you need a lot of molecules of H20 to do it.

 

[Emily25069]

Fun DHK!

I dont arrogantly say that God is not bound by baptism. Obviously people get saved without baptism all the time-in the bible, and today! That is what I mean by saying that God isnt bound by baptism. He doesnt need baptism to save. He saves withouth it.

You and I agree on this point.

Actually, we agree on more than what you think.

What I AM saying is that scripture does say baptism saves. It is all a part of the gospel. Its something that we look to outside of ourselves. It is a gift of God and not something that we do to obey.

I will show you a scripture that shows an infant being saved WHEN you show me a scripture that says baptism is a sign of obedience.

neither one of us can do that.


Furthermore, I am familiar with the scripture that says

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

It says that whoever does not believe will be condemned. It does not say that whoever is not baptized with be condemned.. BUT,( here is the part where I say that the first sentence still counts, and you say that it should be ignored because of the second part) It still mentions baptism when it speaks of being saved. Being baptized is part of it. Its not the whole of it, but it IS part of it.


I admit that I am not a pro when it comes to the original languages (or even a beginner). I can only tell you how the word of God has been translated, and it hasnt been translated as "because of repentence".

I have a friend who was in a baptist seminary, and ended up a Lutheran because of the whole baptism issue. he tells me that "eis" is in the bible in many places, and usually, it means "for".. and he finds no reason to believe it means anything but "for" and he asked a zillion questions about why it should mean "because of" and he was met with a brick wall each time. They just couldnt possibly look into why it meant "for". It was impossible to begin with. They had already decided that this was the case. EIS means Be baptized FOR the remission of sins--not, be baptized BECAUSE OF the remission of sins. He said that his professor had to go way out of his way to find a way to make "eis" mean because of. He said that the whole thing was very twisty and it caused him to go further into his study and what he found out was that "eis" means for.

I trust my friend, but even before I trusted him, I trusted the plain words of the bible. If FOR means BECAUSE of, then it would have been translated thusly....unless you of course think a bunch of heretics gave us our bible translation.

Oh wait..... you do!!

(because it wasnt a bunch of independent fundamental baptists sitting there formalizing what made it into canon. it was basically a bunch of Catholics... and I know that scripture was scripture before the Catholics said so, but you gotta admit that no baptists had anything to do with your KJV. NOTHING! And the English translators, well, they werent baptists either. They were a bunch of baby baptizing heretics according to you)

How can you trust their version of the bible? Probably you should all get together and make your own, so that words get translated properly for your doctrine. Otherwise, people like me will go around trusting the way it has been translated.



When it comes to adults and baptism, you and I agree completely. (exept on the whole idea of making a decision. I dont think anyone "decides" to believe anything.. we are presented with information and we believe or we dont. In the case of Jesus, the Holy Spirit saves us, or he doesnt, but we dont decide anything. As spiritually dead people, we are incapable of deciding to follow God.)

When it comes to infants, here is where we disagree. First of all, an infant can have faith. There are actually several examples of this in scripture. And while we cannot know if an infant has faith or not, I do believe in infant baptism for the infants of christian parents. I do not believe that an infant baptism gives fire insurance, but I do believe it is the beginning of discipleship for a christian child, and I believe it is consistent with how children were seen in the old testament and the new. God didnt wait around for a child to choose their faith. There were infants circumcized and there were infants chosen by their parents to be dedicated to the temple. Infants were a complete part of the household.

In our case, we baptized our children and will raise them in the faith, just like you. We hope that they remain in the faith. We will guide and nurture them in it, but if in the end they reject it, they reject it. Baptism doesnt save without faith, because faith, baptism, repentence, all go together. You cant seperate any of them. And its not just a one time thing either, its lifelong. Everyone should be repenting and trusting God each and every day, because we all still sin each and every day. Its a race, right? We cant just run a few inches and say "I won the race".. We have to keep going.


In any case, if infants cant be saved by faith, than something other than faith has to save an infant, or either God has made a special dispensation for them (not mentioned in scripture) OR there are unbelievers in heaven. I believe that the life of faith in Christ begins at birth for the Christian child.

As for the children of unbelievers? I simply have no idea. The bible doesnt speak for them. So we Lutherans dont come up with an age of accountability. We trust in Gods mercy and love, and we look at scriptures that showed Christ loved children, but we will not come up with a doctrine for it.

Anyhow


If all those writings are simply heretics (the church fathers are heretics, I am assuming), then I am sad, because that was the church back then. There were no baptists around until the last 500-600 years. It was all a false church until then?

Nah.. I dont think so. I dont think those writings are perfect. They werent apostles or anything, but heresy got taken care of very quickly when presented, and you would think that if baby baptism was heretical, there would have been a huge outcry-but there wasnt until the sixteenth century. I trust in scripture alone, but I also realized that I am looking at scripture from a 21st century western lens, and that is now how scripture was written. My prescription was off, and I believe yours is too.

 

[lori4dogs]

Emily, Baptist have to 'spin scripture'' to make it say what they want it to say. The scriptures clearly say that Baptism is necessary.

Your are also right, God is not bound by Baptism. He will save whoever He wants ie: the theif on the cross. The scriptures say 'it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgement' but clearly Enoch was an exception.

 

[webdog]

Emily, Baptist have to 'spin scripture'' to make it say what they want it to say. The scriptures clearly say that Baptism is necessary.

Your are also right, God is not bound by Baptism. He will save whoever He wants ie: the theif on the cross. The scriptures say 'it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgement' but clearly Enoch was an exception.

That was good...WE are the spin masters :laugh:

As was already shown to you, the thief on the cross was not baptized and he was with Christ in paradise that same day. I know you have countered with the outrageous presupposition that since he desired to be baptized (you have no way of knowing this or proving this), that was sufficient. That is Scripture twisting at it's worse.

 

[Emily25069]

But Webdog,

just because God doesnt need baptism to save, doesnt mean that baptism isnt for our salvation.

The bible clearly says it is.

You honestly dont think you have an agenda? Here's a hard truth-we all come up with these difficult parts of scripture, where we think...

"now hmm.. I belive the bible teaches this, so why does it say this.. "

Since you have already decided that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, then those verses CANNOT mean what they so plainly state. They just cannot.

I say that baptism is part of the gospel. I have no idea why it says that I have to be baptized for the remission of sins, when God clearly saves people without baptism, but it does say it, and there is no way around it. It never says to be baptized for obedience purposes.

I have to believe scripture over man. I cant do anything else. I trust my bible.

 

[webdog]

But Webdog,

just because God doesnt need baptism to save, doesnt mean that baptism isnt for our salvation.

The bible clearly says it is.

You honestly dont think you have an agenda? Here's a hard truth-we all come up with these difficult parts of scripture, where we think...

"now hmm.. I belive the bible teaches this, so why does it say this.. "

Since you have already decided that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, then those verses CANNOT mean what they so plainly state. They just cannot.

I say that baptism is part of the gospel. I have no idea why it says that I have to be baptized for the remission of sins, when God clearly saves people without baptism, but it does say it, and there is no way around it. It never says to be baptized for obedience purposes.

I have to believe scripture over man. I cant do anything else. I trust my bible.

If baptism is needed, the thief was not saved and Jesus was a liar. Simple fact of the matter if you hold to such a hard line stance.

 

[lori4dogs]

If baptism is needed, the thief was not saved and Jesus was a liar. Simple fact of the matter if you hold to such a hard line stance.

God can save anyone, anytime and any way He wants. The thief on the cross would hardly make Jesus a liar. There exceptions in the bible. "For it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgement". What about Enoch?

 

[webdog]

God can save anyone, anytime and any way He wants. The thief on the cross would hardly make Jesus a liar. There exceptions in the bible. "For it is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgement". What about Enoch?

Red Herring...and quite false. God cannot save "anyone, anytime and any way He wants". He is bound by His very own holiness and nature. HE has set the parameters for salvation, and HE cannot go against that. If faith in Christ is necessary according to Him, He cannot save someone apart from faith in Christ. You are quite wrong in your assessment of His sovereignty.

The thief on the cross was saved...salvation was not necessary for his salvation. Case closed.

 

[lori4dogs]

"(because it wasnt a bunch of independent fundamental baptists sitting there formalizing what made it into canon. it was basically a bunch of Catholics... and I know that scripture was scripture before the Catholics said so, but you gotta admit that no baptists had anything to do with your KJV. NOTHING! And the English translators, well, they werent baptists either. They were a bunch of baby baptizing heretics according to you)"

Yep, they were all heretics according to the Baptists. You would think God would have had some Baptists in on determining the canon of the New Testament since they would have been the ones being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Emily25069]

If baptism is needed, the thief was not saved and Jesus was a liar. Simple fact of the matter if you hold to such a hard line stance.

NO.

that is not what I am saying. If you would go back and read, you will see that I have said that God saves folks without baptism all the time.

It is unbelief that condemns.

You and I agre on that point!!!

I also say that baptism saves, because the bible does.

How does this make sense?

Im not sure.

Does it make sense?

to me, not really.

Is it in the bible even if I cant exactly make sense of it?

YES! It is!!

I dont claim to understand it. I only claim that it is there, and so I will believe it.

I think that if someone were to get saved, and then despise the gift of baptism, then probably that person is probably not saved because faith would desire baptism. I also believe that if someone were to get saved, but not be able to be baptized (such as the theif on the cross) then that person is still saved.

But to say that God doesnt save with baptism is anti-biblical, because the bible says it is so.

Again, I trust the bible over men.

 

[Emily25069]

Yep, they were all heretics according to the Baptists. You would think God would have had some Baptists in on determining the canon of the New Testament since they would have been the ones being led by the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]


Exactly!!!