biblos
-
Posts
6 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by biblos
-
-
I'd have one question here because it seems there were two usages for Tongues, One of earthly languages and one that appears not earthly
1Co 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
I doubt that they speak Greek, english, Hebrew or another earthly language in heaven, so it appears Paul is saying that at least some of the glossia going about
is of angels rather than earthly language in context of ch 12.
-
This came up in a different thread:
By the way - some research on the Book of Life:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Life
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...ook%20of%20life
Ta nebula..now I gotta look at the difference between the "Book of Life" and the "Lambs Book of Life"
OK, any takers?
My thoughts by context is that there is not a distinction, the Book of Life is mentioned once in the Old Testament, and there that those who are not righteous would be blotted
out of the Book of Life.
Its mentioned again in Philippians 3, in relationship to believers being recorded there, and then again in rev 3:5, again in relationship to believers, in Rev 17 its used of those
whose names are not in there the Beast has dominion over. and in Revelation 20. Those whose names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire.
Since only John uses the expression the Lambs Book of Life and the expression 'Book of Life' here is what can be surmized. Those not found in the Book of Life are thrown into
the lake of Fire. those who are in the Book of Life get into heaven. Those in the lambs book of Life get into heaven, and avoid judgement. I'm not really seeing any distinction in
how this author uses both terms.
-
From time to time, the question "Do I have to be baptized to be saved" comes up. So then just what does baptism have to do with our salvation?
Some groups (notably Roman Catholicism and some parts of the Church of Christ) believe that baptism is essential to salvation: i.e. no baptism, no salvation.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Salvation Army which doesn't practice baptism at all.
Most Christian theology seems to lie somewhere in the middle.
Entire denominations have sprung up over HOW and WHEN baptism should be carried out. Full immersion, sprinkling, pouring; infant baptism, adult baptism, believer's baptism.
So then where is the truth?
Mark 16:16 clearly states: "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Some will immediately cite the example of the condemned thief on the cross as a proof that baptism is irrelevant. My answer to that is that there are exceptions, (Imminent death. Lack of water availability, health reasons.)
Others will say: Well if I have to baptized to be saved, isn't that a form of works? I would say that faith without works is dead.
You see, baptism doesn't save you, IT SHOWS (confesses) that you are saved.
Romans 6 is the perfect primer on the 'why' of baptism. It explains the correlation of baptism to Christ's death for us.
So then, I personally believe in baptismal confession. It's a public way of saying "I believe in Jesus Christ and the efficacy of His death and the fact of His resurrection."
Just for those who Believe in Baptismal Regeneration I'd have a question:
When a Gentile asks what must I do to be saved. Why would the Holy Spiirt forget to include Baptism? Early Altzheimers setting in? One would think God would give everything necessary for salvation when the exact question is asked by a Gentile Believer.
yet we see in Acts 16 that only Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is included as that mandatory for Salvation. I have yet to hear a good anwser to that question given its the only time anyone asks what is necessary for Salvation recorded in the New Testament in question form.
-
Alright, guys, there's an issue that has bothered me for some time; maybe someone here can offer an insight...
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."
Here's the text of acts 2:38. Some people in here have suggested that the word "for" (Greek: eis) causes the sentence to mean "because your sins are already forgiven."
But if this is the case, then...at what point were they forgiven? I don't know, what do you think? As far as I can tell, up this point, the people did nothing and nothing happened to them. Given the broader teaching of the Bible, in both testaments, it seems strange to suggest that repentance should follow salvation.
Any takers?
People ought to follow the Bible rather than fancying themselves as being able to correct it.
The fact that their is such a thing as you've brought out in this thread makes me ill.
I beleve you are quite correct, however, let me point out that Cornelius in Acts 10 receives the Holy Spirit BEFORE Baptism as the first indication that Baptism is not necessary for Salvation but is a wittness once Saved.
Second: If Baptism were truly necessary for Salvation. When a Gentile asks a inspired Apostle led by the Holy Spirit what one must do to be saved. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit merely forgot to mention Baptism? what view of God does that put forward? one that is Abscent minded at best.
Yet in Acts 16 the Philippian Jailer a gentile asks Paul what must I do to be saved and the anwser is Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is never mentioned in connection with salvation when the full question is asked. Either God is forgetful, or its not a part of salvation but an act to obey
once your saved.
-
From time to time, the question "Do I have to be baptized to be saved" comes up. So then just what does baptism have to do with our salvation?
Some groups (notably Roman Catholicism and some parts of the Church of Christ) believe that baptism is essential to salvation: i.e. no baptism, no salvation.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Salvation Army which doesn't practice baptism at all.
Most Christian theology seems to lie somewhere in the middle.
Entire denominations have sprung up over HOW and WHEN baptism should be carried out. Full immersion, sprinkling, pouring; infant baptism, adult baptism, believer's baptism.
So then where is the truth?
Mark 16:16 clearly states: "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Some will immediately cite the example of the condemned thief on the cross as a proof that baptism is irrelevant. My answer to that is that there are exceptions, (Imminent death. Lack of water availability, health reasons.)
Others will say: Well if I have to baptized to be saved, isn't that a form of works? I would say that faith without works is dead.
You see, baptism doesn't save you, IT SHOWS (confesses) that you are saved.
Romans 6 is the perfect primer on the 'why' of baptism. It explains the correlation of baptism to Christ's death for us.
So then, I personally believe in baptismal confession. It's a public way of saying "I believe in Jesus Christ and the efficacy of His death and the fact of His resurrection."
I believe the better example to cite would be Cornelius in Acts 10, He received the Holy Spirit with those around him BEFORE being Baptized. as a gentile he was outside the Covenant with Israel, also
I'd point out that mark 16 the entire emplasis is faith, he who does not believe is condemn'd, it never says he who is not baptized in in that boat. the entire emphasis is faith alone. then there is the final kicker.
IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION WHY WOULD THE HOLY SPIRIT OMIT IT AS A REQUIREMENT WHEN A GENTILE ASKS WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? The anwser is found in acts 16.
Its also by the way, the Only Time that a Gentile asks what he must do for Salvation by the way.
The Biblical gift of tongues
in Theology
Posted