|
| |
Was Jesus Christ circumsized? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Was Jesus Christ circumsized? I guess that by The Covenant of Circumcision in Genesis 17:9-14 he would have been. But it's difficult for me to understand that God would have to be circumsized. |
| |
Was Jesus Christ circumsized? |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
The Bible says that Jesus was circumsized.
Luke 2:21 says "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb." |
| |
Do you have to be baptized to be saved? |
|
|
|
Rom 6:3
|
| |
COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (NIV) .................... This passage shows baptism as symbolizing the believer's participation in the burial and resurrection of Christ. |
| |
Is Passover celebrated by Messianic Jews |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Again, to answer, we are going to have to ask the question: Did the twelve apostles, and those who came after them, stop keeping the passover?
If you are a Jew, then you are obligated by your circumcision to do so; however, if you're a gentile, not being of that circumcision of the flesh, then there is no obligation. The book of Galatians deals with the result of the gentiles who sought to be justified by circumcision and strict following of the works of the law - they fell from grace (Eph. 2:8,9). For we are justified "by grace and through faith", sanctified "by grace and through faith", and baptized with the Holy Spirit "by grace and through faith".
Noone could ever be saved (justified, sanctified, or receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit) by working the law, for all have sinned (transgressed the law - I John 3:4) and fallen short of the glory of "God" (Romans 3:9-31, specifically 23 and also 19,20). Neither the Jew nor the gentile can be justified "by the deeds of (by strict observing of) the law", "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (see verse 28 of the above passage in Romans). Neither are we made perfect by strictly observing the law; but, by our walk in His Holy Spirit in us (who are in Him by that Spirit) we grow on into perfection.
I believe that if your a gentile who is going to observe the passover to gain a deeper insight and understanding of the type, and not because you feel you have to do so, you are doing well. Otherwise, you have stumbled; but, be of good cheer, YHVH will uphold you even in your darkest hour. That is why he gave Paul the words to speak to the Galatians, and in a way to us today, so that we could be convicted of walking in legalism (if we do so) and repent. |
| |
What is the point? |
|
|
|
1 Thessalonians
|
| |
Good morning and good night, EveryHome :-) I am centrist in doctrine, in that I desire to be unaffected by the swinging, swaying and bobbing of the 'plumb bob.' I am centralist in that I believe that all authority should rest on one Entity, Jesus Christ. I don't want to be 'of Apollos' or 'of Paul,' (or of Arminus, Calvin, the Pope, etc.) but of Jesus Christ. A thought (with a touch of irony): "...the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Acts 11:26 Could it be that the belivers in Antioch were the first to be free from denominationalism? You know, the 'Reformed Pharisees Fellowship,' the 'Church of the Circumcision Plus,' the 'Resurrection Sadducees,' and the 'First Temple of the Forgiven Tax-men' factions that were popular in Jerusalem. I agree with you that evangelism is paramount. Preaching the Good News to all the earth is a command to all believers, and leading the church to live the Good News is the responsibility of those called to serve as ministers. This would include the 'enlightened' U.S.A. Many 'enlightened' missionaries are more worried about making disciples of their thinking than disciples of Christ. Here is where we can be strengthened against the 'wiles of the devil.' Preaching Jesus, rather than doctrine, we will not be overcome by Satan.
In Christ Jesus.
|
| |
When God himself has selected Moses to f |
|
|
|
Ex 4:24
|
| |
Because of his disobedince to God, by neglecting the covenant of the Abramham. Which is the
"circumcision covenant" he did not circumcise his child. Which was a Israelite covenant and Moses wife Zipporah, was a "midianite." It is evident that they were unequally yoked.
Ex 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him (Moses) verse 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone or(knife), and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast 'it' at his feet, and said: Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
The head of the house should circumcise the males but we discovered that the (woman) Zipporah had circumcised the child. Moses was in a position or condition that he was unable to perform the circumcision. (The Evidence) The words "cast it" in hebrew means "made it touch". Some people think that she threw it at him but, she touched him with the foreskin and the angel of the Lord that binded him, had let him go. According to v26; As quoted earlier Zipporah a "woman" performed the circumcision. The reason why she performed the circumcision is because, it was out of a necessity. Moses was unable to do it. After she touched Moses, you will notice that verse 26 stated: So "he" let him go; This is the why he was unable to perform the circumcision he was bound. The "he" could have been a angel of the Lord or God Himself. But had departed from Moses and he was restored. And his wife experssed her feelings toward the situation. When she said; "A bloody husband thou art to me". That could have been because she had to perform the circumcision on the child for his sake (Moses), or toward Moses because he did not perform the circumcision and it was displeasing or disgusting to her. |
| |
When God himself has selected Moses to f |
|
|
|
Ex 4:24
|
| |
It is my understanding according to the New International version footnotes that God sought to kill him because he had not followed his commands and circumsized his son possibly because they were living in Minian, or maybe because he was not too familiar with God's law. It could also of been that because Zipporah was a Medianite she opposed the circumcision. I believe that this might of been the case in part because as soon as Moses became ill she knew exactly what to do and circumcised the son which proves that they had definitly discussed the matter. Moses however could not fulfill the position God had planned for him as the deliverer of Isreal until he had fulfilled God's covenant of circumcision. Under Old Testament law failing to circumcise your son meant to remove yourself and your family from God's blessing. He also learned that messing with God was even more dangerous than messing with the Pharaoh. |
| |
Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Acts 16:3 How would the Jews know about Timothy's circumcision or not? |
| |
Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? |
|
|
|
Acts 16:13
|
| |
Acts 16:3 How would the Jews know about Timothy's circumcision or not? |
| |
Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? |
|
|
|
Acts 16:13
|
| |
Not to be flippant, offensive, or insensitive, but, historically, how has circumcision always been checked out? Ask the Nazi SS troops of the Third Reich. |
| |
Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? |
|
|
|
Acts 16:13
|
| |
Is there more than one way to verify circumcision, something of which I am unaware? I was not comparing Nazis with Jewish people, nor would I ever do so. I hate National Socialism and love God's elect nation, Israel. |
| |
Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 |
|
|
|
1 Pet 3:21
|
| |
Okay, I have read through your response, but you didn't answer one vital question, in fact, you ask the very same from me. Let's cover your points one by one.
1. You are right in that those verses you point out speak nothing to the necesity of baptism, but talk about the root core of the salvation process, it is grace through faith. But it doesn't end there, nor can it end there, otherwise you "leave out" unrefutible evidence that baptism is a necessary component of that salvation. You need also be careful to not take out of context these verse and truly examine what the teachings are here. You will find that a majority of these verses deal with the problems between Jew and Gentile and the fact that Gentiles are not circumcised.
2. You point out the fact that Peter refers to baptism at pentecost in chp 2 but not in chp 3. Well, let me turn the point back around once more and ask you the same thing as I asked before, if baptism is not important to salvation, why did he include it in chp 2? To answer your question, probably the reason why is two fold, first a great deal of them probably already heard it in chp. 2 and second, the were dragged away before they had a chance to finish. What would he have said if he would have been able to finish?
3. Your next point you should go back and re-study before everything else. He did speak about baptism and he did baptize. Be care you don't take out of context what he says in 1 Cor. chp 1. He did baptise which he himself points out, but the message that he is getting across is that it is not important who baptized you, in authority issues, but that the body of Chirst is one. He is not down playing baptism at all, in fact I think it is a reinforcement of the idea that baptism is between the person and God and no one else. Don't put things into this passage that are not there. One last thing for this point before I go onto the next, if he wasn't referring to baptism, what was he talking about in Romans 6?
4. In this point, you fall into a very common trap, those were all before pentecost which I stated in my previous note. Jesus had the power to forgive sin as he was, and is God. Only the father has the power to forgive sin, and thus we see several examples of Jesus not only healing but forgiving sin. You should note that all of those occurrances happened after a demonstration of faith by the person, healed for forgiven. What is baptism? Is it not a demonstration of faith?
5. This one is probably your best point and it is the hardest to refute, however, I challenge you to find where it says they were saved, even though they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, if you read on, you will note that they were baptized immediately. Just because a person is filled with the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean that they are saved. We do not have evidence that makes that abundantly clear, you are going on assumption, and not evidence. But like I said before this is the most compelling of your argument so far. However, if it is just this one point, with all of the other evidence that points to the necessity of baptism, assumptions are not enough.
6. If I were to take the same way of examining scripture as you have, then our faith alone does nothing for us, as James 2:26 states. Faith by itself is dead, james tells us, and thus if our faith is dead, how can we ever receive that grace of God? This is a feeble argument that shows no study of the truth in that passage. Don't look to interpret and harmonize, search for the truth and nothing but the truth, being careful to rightly divide the word and give an accurate representation of what is written and not what is assumed or what we want to believe. |
| |
Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath |
|
|
|
Col 2:16
|
| |
The book of ACts is full of evidence that in fact they did continue to observe the sabbath. (I cannot find one reference where they changed the day to Sunday) Please read Acts 21:20-25. These jewish men did not forsake Gods law, nor modify any commandment. They as jews did not convert and become christians. Even today, born again jewish believers worship on the sabbath, observe the feasts, circumcise their sons...
|
| |
When God himself has selected Moses to f |
|
|
|
Ex 4:24
|
| |
Moses had not place on his son the sign of the covenant "circumcision" (Josh.5:2-9) |
| |
Proselyte to Judaism as means of salv. |
|
|
|
OT general
|
| |
Salvation is a New Testament concept. Christ's salvation is the answer to man's inability to keep the law imposed upon the Old Testament believer. While Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, God has operated under different covenants during different periods of time. There are those with Bible degrees that can probably expound on this better than me, but I would break the different covenants down into these phases:
1) Adamic covenant: (Genesis 3:8) Adam walked and talked with God freely until Adam sinned and broke the covenant.
2) Noah covenant: (Genesis 6:9, 6:18, 9:11) Noah walked with God. He was a just man in an evil world, so God protected him and his family from the flood. Noah offered burnt offerings to the Lord. (Genesis 8:20) God gave Noah rules that he shall not eat flesh with its blood. Also, God established the death penalty for murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3) Abrahamic Covenant: (Genesis 12:1-3) God sovereignly chose Abraham as the lineage that would ultimately be the lineage of Jesus, God's only Son. Abraham first instituted the tithe to Melchizedek. I note this because the tithe preceeds the "law" and should not be included as "being under the law" when admonished to tithe. God began to add other Abrahamic laws such as circumcision. Abraham continues the sacrifice of animals first instituted by Abel (Genesis 4:4)
4) Mosaic Covenant: God instituted the law beginning with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). The Levitical law came into being under the covenant established with Moses. This covenant continued until....
5) Christ's Covenant: (Hebrews 8:6-13) After man had been shown that he was incapable of keeping the law, and that the sacrifice of animals could never redeem sins, it took the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, followed by His glorious resurrection, to redeem us from sin and to conquer death, hell, and the grave.
So...to answer your question..."salvation" is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12), but for those who lived before the New Covenant, they were required to join God in the covenant He had established at the time.
Hope this helps.... |
| |
Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? |
|
|
|
Acts 16:13
|
| |
userdoe211,
While JVH0212 might not have given the conclusive answer you would have liked, I do not believe he was making comparisons.
There is no cultural or archaelogical data that would replace old-fashioned eyesight. How circumcision was checked out was very simple, they looked. How else would one know?
Sam Hughey |
| |
Scripture is clear if we are open, right |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
How did the believing Jews know these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit?
How were they commanded to be baptized?
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them thatheard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also
was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak
with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the
Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. |
| |
Scripture is clear if we are open, right |
|
|
|
Acts 11:1
|
| |
How did the believing Jews know these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit?
How were they commanded to be baptized?
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them thatheard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also
was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. 46 For they heard them speak
with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the
Holy Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. |
| |
Scripture is clear if we are open, right |
|
|
|
Acts 11:1
|
| |
I suppose that you are saying that we must speak in tongues to prove that we have received the Holy Spirit and that we must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Would comparisons of scripture point out just as well that we must receive the word of God Act 11:1 and that we should speak the mighty deeds of God Acts 2:12, and praise and exalt God, and speak the word of God with boldness Acts 4:31, and obey Him Acts 5:32, and proclaim Jesus Acts 9:20, and repent. All of these were present at scriptures concerning the Holy Spirit. |
| |
Scripture is clear if we are open, right |
|
|
|
Acts 11:1
|
| |
Ray,
I think you may be a bit quick to assume from the scripture which Sharp quoted "that we must speak in tongues to prove that we have received the Holy Spirit". The focus here is upon HOW Peter and all the circumcised believers KNEW that Cornelius and his close friends and relatives (Acts 10:24) had received the Holy Spirit. Verses 45 and 46 clearly state how, [45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.] NASU. God used signs and wonders to begin His church (Acts 2:43, 4:29-30,5:12, 6:8, 14:3, Rom 15:18-19 and Heb 2:4) first with the Jews Acts 2:1-4, and then with the Gentiles starting with Cornelius, (see Rom 1:16) . This was promised by Jesus in Mark 16:17, ["These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;] NASU
However, this was not to be the case for all believers as Paul relates in 1 Cor 12:30 [All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?] NASU. Furthermore, Perter stated in Acts 2:38, ["Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.] He did not include speaking in tongues OR that tongues that appear as fire must fall upon those receiving salvation even though that very thing had just happened to him and his fellow believers that very day! Some may contend that the gift of the Holy Spirit which Peter refers to means the sign of tongues but that seems to be disputed by Paul's statement above and the gift of the Holy Spirit is not limited to tongues. The term "gift of" for both phenomena seems to separate them as all other gifts are separated, and no other gift is expected to be immediately evident for salvation. Every believer receives the "gift of" the Holy Spirit to be sealed and to be enabled for ministry by receiving gifts of the Spirit, [1 Cor 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. and 1 Cor 12:8-10, 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.] NASU. So although God chose to show evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit in the early church by pouring out the gift of tongues upon salvation, He did not continue the sign to all believers.
As for being baptised in the name of Jesus, Peter is clearly stating that requirement. Paul finds a group of followers in Acts 19 who were in need of this very thing, [Acts 19:1-6, 1 ... Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.] NASU. These believers help to explain that water baptism does not save as they were baptized into John, [Matt 3:11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.] NASU. John told the people to "believe in Him who was coming after him" which is what places us into the baptism of Jesus. It is by belief (trust) in Jesus that we are baptised into Jesus name, [Rom 10:9-10, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.] NASU. By the way, these believers also prophesied but no one claims that prophesy must be an evidence of salvation.
If I have helped at all, to God be the Glory, Phillip
|
| |
Did you really want to say that? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Brother reread what you have said here, do you really mean it this way. While I do not hold with Orthodoxy’s view of baptism, most everything he said was right.
From around 150 AD and possibly much earlier the prevailing method of baptism was infant baptism. This continued until the Anabaptist questioned the practice in the mid 1500's. The anabaptist were persecuted for their belief by nearly every one, catholic and reformer alike. I further submit that the anabaptist beliefs did influence the beliefs of those today that are against infant baptism. There is nothing new under the Sun
The idea of infant baptism is not without some merit. Infant baptism has an analogy with circumcision. The Jews circumcised a baby in his 8 day to bring him into the old covenant. Likewise the early church baptized an infant to bring them into the new covenant.
Since this practice was established so early in the church it may have come into being, through the unwritten teachings of the Apostles or early disciples. Melanchthon quoted the testimonies of Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Augustin, for the apostolic origin of infant-baptism. Luther said, “The burden of proof lies on the Anabaptists to show that infant-baptism is forbidden in the Bible, before they abolish such an old and venerable institution of the whole Christian Church.”
Orthodoxy further said that we came out of a Catholic bent, that raise the ire of just about everyone. However anyone that celebrates Christmas and Easter is celebrating Catholic (read early church) holidays (that is not to say there is anything wrong with giving glory to Jesus on those days). The influence of Catholicism in Protestantism is undeniable and serves no purpose argue.
Brother I contend that while you may not agree with Orthodoxy he to should thanked for his input into this discussion. If for no other reason than his input stimulated others to respond and from those answers you were able to reach your conclusion.
I thank him because he caused me to go out and reread early history to get an understanding of the issues.
Thank you Orthodoxy!
|
| |
Slight historical skew? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I can take your first paragraph as either deliberately insulting or significant misunderstanding, and I'm not sure which would be more appropriate. I'll let you determine that. In any case, it is a red herring and quite possibly ad hominum abusive. I'll let it go at that.
Your second paragraph is a little better. I am glad that you recognize, or at least make mention of, Anabaptism being heresy. At its inception, it was recognized as such by all of the branches of the church that were in existence at the time, Protestant and Catholic. Still, you are setting up a straw-man by restating my position in a manner that I do not condone and then proceeding to mock this restatement. This is not a sufficient answer. I recognize that a paragraph devoted to denominational history hardly does justice to the complexities involved, nor do I deny that those of ages past acted in good conscience. But there is no other way of tracing the development of the church without resorting to such "oversimplifications" as you call them. Everything I said was true, and I am not aware that I inadvertently suppressed relevant evidence. If I have, please present it for consideration instead of simply dismissing my arguments with a wave of your hand.
If you find my words offensive, be that as it may. I am sorry of my manner offends you, but I cannot detect anything offensive in it. I am not primarily interested in "making friends and influencing people." I am primarily interested in proclaiming the truths of Scripture. It is not my responsibility to ensure that you or anyone else likes or agrees with me. It is my responsibility to tell it like it is, which I trust that I have done.
Furthermore, when I said "we call came from Rome at one point" I was not referring to us personally, but our traditions. And you cannot possibly deny that you belong to a tradition. You were brought into the faith by someone, and you adhere to a church. When I say "tradition" I do not mean the Romish conception of tradition that is equal with the Word. I simply mean the history of the people of God. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, and I see that you are not, then your church can be traced to Rome eventually, even if it be independant. Your profile indicates that you are probably a missionary of some kind. Who brought you into the faith? Who brought them into the faith? Trace it back through history far enough and you will come to Rome. Unless, that is, you hold to the exceptionally bizarre "Baptist Bride" idea.
I am not simply "pontificating my denominational bent." When counting traditions, I am in the majority. On the infant baptistic side, we have the East, Rome, the Reformed tradition, the Anglican tradition, the Lutheran tradition, and some Methodist groups. On the believers' baptism side there are the Baptists and Anabaptists, which, I might add, are almost exclusively in the US. So I will call that into evidence.
The requirements you set before me are utterly impossible. It seems that nothing I can say will have any affect on you. Since you are currently defining "incontrovertable" and "truth," you can redefine them as you see fit. Still, I will make a stab at it. Note in Acts 10, Peter oversees the baptism of Cornelius' whole household. In Acts 16, Paul baptizes Lydia's household. Later in Acts 16, Paul baptizes the household of the Corinthian jailer. In 1Cor. 15 Paul recounts the households he baptized in Corinth. It is safe to assume that infants were present at in all of these households. Since these are all of the times that baptism occurs where families are present, it would seem that infant baptism is not without significant support in the NT. Then there is circumcision. Yes, I know we no longer circumcise. But the Jews did. And they circimcised on the eighth day of life as a sign and seal of the covenant. Since baptism is the same thing, the sign and seal of the covenant, it makes sense that we should do as they did. The sign of the covenant is no longer a physical sign upon the body, but it is done shortly after birth all the same. |
| |
Slight historical skew? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear orthodoxy, Please tell me who is being insulting? You have denounced every Christian that has Anabaptist, Baptist, or Pentecostal roots, and thrown in 'some' Charismatic, Methodist, and independents on the side, and declared them heretic for their non-traditional view of Scripture. Once you have aligned your tradition with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, you are indeed in the majority, and state that 'majority rules, and others drool.' What a bigoted form of faith.(bigot-a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices-Webster)
When you state that 'we all come from Rome.' you are saying that every Christian's faith rides upon tradition. I prefer to believe that personal faith in Jesus Christ and the personal revelation of the Bible by the unction of the Holy Spirit are still working in the church. Am I wrong to believe this?
"...Almost exclusively in the US." Please tell me, how much have you travelled, and how many years of study brought you to this conclusion?
We finally come to Scripture. Your doctrine is based wholly on the assumption that 'household' MUST include infants and children, and that NT circumcision is baptism, and must be done on the eighth day (or whenever it is convenient for infant-parents-church facilities). Is this generally correct? I am sorry to ask the 'utterly impossible' of you, but don't you think that a reference that Jesus instituted this rite, or the apostles practiced it is in order? Your extrapolation of Scripture is strained. Does not the Old Testament promise of a 'circumcision of heart' (Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4) speak of faith on the part of the individual, as compared to a rite performed by religious officials with the parents consent?
What I am saying is that the bulk of you argument rests on majority and tradition, not the Bible. You state that you "...cannot detect anything offensive..." in "proclaiming the truths of Scripture." I, the minority, heartily disagree. This Bible Study Forum is not a 'soapbox' for denominations, but a place for research of the tenets of Christian faith. I would be glad to discuss with you the doctrine of baptism in it's various forms, but please keep your label of 'heresy' and the like to yourself. If I 'cross the line' by denying the virgin birth, the Triune nature of God, the efficacy of the name of Jesus, the Blood of Jesus, or the like, then bring out your accusations, dear brother-in-Christ.
Peace upon you in Jesus' name, charis |
| |
Slight historical skew? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Okay, let's step back a minute. First, I have not "denounced" anyone. To say that because a denomination has heretical roots that all of its members are heretics commits both the genetic and division fallacies. I want to do neither of those. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that the first instance of a strict believers' baptism as opposed to covenantal baptism makes its appearance in the Anabaptists. If you can provide evidence of strict believers' baptism earlier than that, please do so, but I believe you will find it difficult. Why do I consider this telling? Because if the church has never acted in a certain way, it is extremely dubious to suggest that they had it wrong the whole time and now we have it right. If you can provide evidence of opposition to infant baptism from a non-heretical group before the sixteenth century, you are welcome to do so.
Your analysis of my argument about tradition totally ignores most of my points. Were you or were you not brought into the Christian faith by someone else? I would wager anything that the answer is that you were. If so, who brought them? And who brought them? And who brought them? You see? And I am not "aligning" myself with either Rome or the East. I would, in fact, attempt to strongly distance myself from both of them. But I, contrary to what you have stated, will freely admit that both of those ancient denominations have good things about them, including but not limited to, their views on infant baptism and reverence in worship.
About the scope of the Baptist tradition. Judging from the size of the SBC (somewhere about 10,000,000), and including all the rest of the hundreds of Baptist denominations in the US, there are probably 20,000,000 Baptists here. Where else are there Baptists? Well, there are some in England, but they have always been a tiny minority. Everywhere else in the world they are the result of mission works and exist in small numbers. My evidence? Look on the net. Search Google for "baptist denominations" and tell me what you find. There are several respectible Baptist history sites there (stay away from the Landmarkist stuff though). All of them place the origin of the Baptistic denominations in England and America, and it has spread only through missionary work ever since. This doesn't take world travelling or years of study. A cursory examination of immediately available evidence should suffice. But I did not simply make this up on the spot: I have been studying denominational history for several years now.
On to Scripture. The idea that household does not include children seems to run directly contrary to the use of the word everywhere else in Scripture. Just do a word search using "household" and see what you get. It _always_ means the entire house. Assumming that household does not include children is out of line with the rest of Scripture. You are welcome to provide places in Scripture where "household" does not refer to the whole thing. And references about baptism do not count since that would be circular reasoning.
While I do believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, exactly how long after the birth baptism occurs is of no importance to me, provided it is done in a timely manner and as soon as convenient. The eighth day regulation is not important. Furthermore, Christ's institution of Christian baptism says nothing about baptizing believers only, and also says nothing about baptizing adult believers only. Making any argument on either of those grounds is fallacious at best. Just as I cannot clearly say that Christ instituted infant baptism, you cannot clearly say that he instituted believers' baptism. Yet, all of the promises of God to his people are "for you and your children" or something along those lines. God works through families, and always has. Not baptizing infants is a denial of God's chosen method of action in the world.
I see Paul's baptism of households as evidence that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles, Paul being an apostle and all.
Your mention of "circumcision of the heart" does not help you, for the thrust is that physical circumcision is simply a sign of what ought to happen in the heart. Baptism is exactly the same, a sign of what should happen on the inside. Just because there is a spiritual reality does not mean that physical reality may be abandoned.
Oh, and please do not put in quotes anything that is not either from Scripture or actually taken verbatim from my post. To do otherwise only serves to put words in my mouth, a profoundly uncharitible, unfair, and illogical practice. |
| |
Did Christ die for the world? |
|
|
|
1 John 2:2
|
| |
Hi Tim, I agree with Ezekiel in the tree next door. Christ died for the whole world but it requires faith and obedience on our part. But He shows us His favor, its nothing that is due to us for any work that we do.
Ezekiel chose the Roman 3:25 scripture dealing with propitiation. Here we see also, verse23, "for *all have sinned* and fall short of the glory of God." But the propitiation was to demonstrate His righteousness, "so that (He) might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Romans 4:4, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as to what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in (Him) who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
Compare this Roman passage with John.
Romans 3:29b, "Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumsised through faith is one. Do we nullify the Law through faith?...But to the one who does not work, but believes in (Him) who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." John 3:15, "...so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in (Him) shall not perish, but have eternal life."
1John 4:14 "We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son into the world to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that (Jesus) is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God."...verse17,"because as (He) is, so also are we in this world." 1John 5:5,"Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that (Jesus) is the Son of God?"...verse 20,"...so that we may know (Him) who is true...This is the true God and eternal life."
So what am I saying, and what do I see these scriptures as saying? I'm saying with 1John 3:3, "And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as (He) is pure." I say with 1 John 2:14 that if we have the word of (God) in us, we can overcome the evil one. Verse15, "Do not love the world nor the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
What I'm saying Tim, is that God is righteous, and the whole world is not going to know (Him) or listen to us. 1John 4:6 But it all depends on the spirit of God. 1John 4:2,6,13
God loves the world, but He hates the sins of the world. Compare John 3:17 with 1John 2:15-17. |
| |
What was the problem in the church? |
|
|
|
Acts 15:1
|
| |
Dear Hank, The first verse speaks of the 'Judaizers' (from Judea) that came to (Syrian) Antioch saying that circumcision was required for salvation. (Which would effectively cut women away from Christ, pun intended:-) Thought the focus was on circumcision, these men were also attempting to require the whole Law of Christians, which would make our faith into a sect of Judaism. Paul and Barnabas had 'no small dispute' with them, and were sent to Jerusalem to ask for wisdom. Peter stood up to say that Christians should not be made to bear what Jews could not, the Law. After Paul and Barnabas gave testimony of their mission journey, the apostles and elders agreed to send emmissaries to Antioch with a letter discrediting the requirements of the 'Judaizers,' and encouraging the saints to abstain from pagan offerings and practicing immorality. In other words, we are not bound by the fetters of the Law, rather by Christ's work in the heart, which sets us free!
In Jesus' name, charis |
| |
where does he ask that,baptized or not |
|
|
|
Acts 2:38
|
| |
Dear Glen, I baptize in the name of Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins and the circumcision of heart. I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. I believe in all the Biblical gifts of the Holy Spirit and gifts of ministry given to the church, as active and valid in this day, and until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe in the Triune nature of God, often called the Trinity, as one God in three Persons.
I do not believe in 'Jesus-only' baptism, 'Modalism,' or 'Oneness.' I do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, but it is a valid, powerful act of faith on the part of the believer.
That your church enjoys many gifts and blessings is not proof that your doctrine concerning the nature of God is correct. Many churches can claim the same thing. If you were to look at my postings these few months, you would soon find that I am no fan of the 'traditions of men,' but seek after Biblical truth in Christ Jesus.
I looked at your links. Frankly, they seem to be more concerned with lifting up the 'Oneness Pentecostal' bent than edifying the church. I think that your zeal to prove baptism in the name of Jesus has led you to 'overshoot the mark' and come up with all kinds of convoluted doctrine concerning the nature of God. In my humble opinion, both your camp and the adamant 'Trinitarian Formula' camp have made much more of this issue than is written in Scripture. The early church of the Bible baptized believers in the name of Jesus. Any extrapolation beyond that is simply conjecture and-or manipulation of Scripture to one's own ends. This does not glorify God or His holy church.
In Jesus' name, charis |
| |
Will all of Israel be saved? |
|
|
|
Rom 11:26
|
| |
Steve,
This obviously does not refer to each and every individual Jew simply because many are already dead who died in unbelief. It also cannot be refering to Israel as a nation since that nation is also comprised of those same individuals already dead in unbelief. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as God's elect. But do not forget what Paul stated in Rom. 9:6; "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel". Not all Jews are Israelites simply because they physically descended from Jacob (Israel). Paul states precisely who true Israelites are in verse 8; "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants".
So, when salvation is used in conjunction with Israel, God is referring to any individual who is a child of God according to the spirit (not the flesh).
Paul states in Galatians 6:15,16 that neither circumcision (physical Israelites) nor uncircumcision (physical Gentiles) is anything. It is the new creation that refers to salvation and Paul relates the new creation with being the Israel of God in verse 16.
It is the elect Israel of God who will be saved because God has chosen them to be in Christ since before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Col. 3:12;2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10)
Sam Hughey |
| |
Willy to lose so we can gain |
|
|
|
Phil 3:8
|
| |
Greetings Jim!
I agreed with Steve's response to your question. And, I would like to add a few comments. The follow of Phil. 3:1-11 goes something like this.
1) Phil. 3:1-2: Warning - Watch out for the Judaizers (false teachers who taught that Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved.
2) Phil. 3:3-6: They put their confidence in the flesh, but Paul had even more reason to boast in the flesh.
3) Phil. 3:7-11: However, everything that Paul had in the flesh meant nothing, because righteousness comes through faith, not through works or achievements.
Therefore, the point of Phil. 3:8 is that the only way to "gain Christ" is to give up on all of our attempts to earn salvation and accept it through faith.
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
