Jeff2

Some ex-atheists claim they just preferred not to believe there is a God because they didn't want to repent of their sins, but to continue to live in their sins. They chose darkness over light. I believe some atheists are just deceived or do not have the courage to take a different position, they prefer to believe in human formulated theories just to be well accepted in their social circle. As a former Atheist, I would say that this was not my experience. I was aware, once I came to believe that there was a possibility of a God as Creator, that I was in trouble. I knew that if that was true, I was accountable. Now, if one continues in this state of agnosticism, they more than likely choose to live in this self-deception that they can have their sin and are O.K., because they have some fuzzy feelings about God letting them off because they have not denied His existence. For me, it was either/or. Either God existed, or he did not. If He did, I was damned. If he did not exist, morality was self-imposed structure designed to control mankind. Both understanding demanded different action. it was a relatively short period of time (2 months) before I became a Christian. Once I knew that I was wrong about God's existence, I had to sort out the "how" can I be right with this "Being." My point is that many Atheists don't know they are rejecting God In response to this, you are only half-correct. Yes, for many years I did not know that I was rejecting God directly. I did however choose to blind myself with only evidence that would support my Atheism. This is self-imposed blindness. You are still accountable! The science of what is called Natural Theology, is that God has revealed enough in Nature that the light of our own reason would arrive at a Divine Creator. One wise Christian who spoke with me while I was an Atheist was smart enough to stop trying to give me the Gospel. As a path, it was meaningless to me. He finally resorted to challenge my presuppositions about why I was an Atheist; just what proof did I have? My epiphany was being asked where we as humans came from. I walked him back to the apes. Then he asked... "Where did the apes come from?" I walked him back to the primordial swamp and single-celled organisms. "Where did they come from?" He had caught me in a quandary, since the scientific Law of Cause and Effect demanded that something cannot come out of nothing. I blurted out the only thing I had left, "Well you see, there was a Big Bang in space, and all life came from that!" "Well, where did that life come from?..." He saw that I was stunned and was caught in my own scientific web, I was at the end of my Cause and Effect. I just admitted to myself that my "Science" was flawed; I had no First Cause. I defended myself saying... " Well, I guess that it always existed." That was the end of my theory. He gently said, " Why couldn't have been God?" He did not say it in science terms, like, "Why can't God be the First Cause rather than some unknown assumption of a first eternal living cell in space." No, he left me there, holding my bag of shattered theory. At that point I had to concede that an Eternal Being that was a Divine Creator was more logical than "chance" and some eternally-existing cell which is an impossibility. I was not an Atheist in order to keep my sin. I drank heavily and smoked Marijuana. I remember after getting saved, the shock of many Christians who knew my previous life when they stated, "I bet that you are so happy to be free of alcohol and drugs," and I said, " I was not unhappy with my life; I was content. I am not saying that my life now is not better in Christ, but don't assume that I was unhappy, or that I came to Christ for a better life." I was not an Atheist in order to justify my sinful life; I was an Atheist because I blinded myself with only the possibility that I was perfectly logical in how we as humans got here. I was accountable. Nature was full of evidence for God, and had every probability of not being a product of time, environment and chance. The Atheist is accountable!

nobody seems to be able to declare that they are any more accurate than other versions nor can they demonstrate that the KJV has faithfully followed the true and original documents that were initially penned. Teditis, you are correct! Is the King James a good translation based upon the Textus Receptus? Absolutely! Is the NASB based upon the Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece; the 23rd edition a good translation? Absolutely! There is no taking away, or plotting to diminish the Deity of Christ, or any collusion with the Jehovah's Witnesses! It comes down to which manuscript compilation you prefer. (It's really hard for there to be a concerted effort to diminish the Deity of Christ when what was written, was written a thousand years before the five late manuscripts the Textus Receptus used).

In contrast to the verb baptízō, to dip, immerse, is the verb rhantízō (G4472), to sprinkle, which must not be taken as equivalent to baptízō. So, you disagree with God and side with the heathen Classical Greek meaning? You don't accept that the symbol reflects the action? That God defines what He means by baptism by a display of actions involved in that action? We know that God speaks of the Baptism of the Spirit. Though there is not an instance in all of Scripture where anyone was immersed in the Spirit. The Spirit is represented as: Descending, John 1:32 Pouring, Acts 2:17 Shedding forth, Acts 2:33 Falling, Acts 11:15 Coming upon, Acts 1:8 Breathed upon them, John 20:22 The baptism of the Spirit is only represented by an action of coming upon, being poured out on the believer. God said this was the action involved is baptism. There is no example of a believer being placed into or under the Spirit in an immersion. As a note as to the word baptidzo ALWAYS meaning to dip or immerse, how do we explain that the Old Testament Hebrew always instructed sprinkling and pouring in ceremonial washing, but when the Septuagint was written in Greek, they use baptidzo to replace those Hebrew words “Rahats” and “Tabal,” which means washing or purification, and never immerse or dip? The Greeks had no term for ceremonial washing. So, the word baptidzo in the Bible, as translated from the Greek, means what God says it means, not what the heathen Greek means.

The first century Didache specified running water such as a river, or a pool if there was no access to a river. Pouring water over a person was permissible only where there was no access to fresh running water or pools which would be stagnant. Wrong! The Didache states a preferred place for ceremonial cleansing. Note that the only mode the Didache states of this cleansing is pouring. No other mode is in the instructions.

Immersion was definitely the first century biblical practice and the method of choice. So, does your Church baptize people publically fully naked? The Early Church you appeal to did. they also baptized infants.

the word baptize mean “to dip or immerse,” but are you talking about the same thing? The Classical Greek bapto means to tinge, dye, dip, immerse. baptidzo, the word in the New Testament, means to cleanse of purify by washing, or in the case of the New Testament, a ceremonial washing; baptism. While the word can include immerse as a meaning, the context determines what it means. It's meaning is ceremonial cleansing. It either is translated "immerse' or "ceremonial cleaning," and cannot be both just by the alternate definition. No real translation of the Bible convolutes the action with the mode of cleansing. For an example: Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you ..." Your argument: Always immerse. "Repent and be immersed every one of you.." immersed? into what? The term has no water in it! Or, as the translators rightly stated, "Repent and be baptized..." Christian ceremonial washing. The term has a meaning in its context, it cannot include anything and everything you want to make it mean. Since the cleansing (baptidzo, baptisma,) is the idea of washing/cleansing, it does not dictate how that cleaning is performed.

The reason baptidzo is never translated immerse, is because it does not mean immerse.

You claimed the King Jameth was accurate... why doesn't it translate baptidzo as "immerse"? You are lacking any substance to your claim.

be careful of being so unconcerned about the watering down of the bible, Yes, I would be careful about using a Bible that waters everything down with hundreds of additions that are not in any early manuscripts!

King James sites have plenty of evidence where the King James Translation is more accurate than others There is ZERO Evidence that the King James is more accurate than other translations. That fact is, cults use the King James. therefore the King James is suspect! (I am only using your King James Only logic)! It's the standard in which to make that judgement of a translation according to the posts above!

The word baptize always means “to submerge or immerse. Nonsense! Not a single credible translation of the Scriptures ever translates baptism with the term Immerse!

Mormons use the King James Bible. Apparently the King James believes that Jesus was created. I have always had Jehovah's Witnesses use the King James when they spoke to me. Every cult I have encountered uses the King James Bible. Is it because the archaic Old English is easy to confuse people with? Is it because the King James manuscripts are based upon a thousand years of additions that do not exist in the oldest known manuscripts? Cults always like to add to Scripture to make them say what they want!

I John 5:7 is of such dubious provenance (in manuscript terms) that it can't be used as a proof-text anyway, even if you yourself believe that it is genuine. Or they way I would put it, the K.J.V. totally adds the phrase:” For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Jeff, it is a plain statement; just the same as your position. Popularity and dogmatism does not make a Biblical doctrine. Most people here would claim that Baptism was not necessary for salvation. The Reformed Camp generally does not accept immersion. Many Denominations allow sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and would not exclude anyone based upon their choice. Many who are dogmatic about exclusive immersion baptism also make it a salvation issue. If not salvation, they make non-immersionists out to be second-class Christians which they choose not to fellowship with. What If I were to say that "those who accepted Jesus were baptized by sprinkling."

Those who accepted Y'SHUA were immersed. Not a single person in all of Scripture was immersed with the exception of those being judged by God.

If you die to self, perhaps you may find Nirvana! Many mix Buddhist teaching in with Christianity, and take it that it is necessary that we die to "self". But God's qualm is not with who we are, but our rebellion with Him. The "cost" of being a Christian would lead to the dividing of families, persecution, and even death. The "cost" will well be worth anything we sacrifice for Christ. Denying ourselves entertainment, a better car, a nicer apartment, a steak and eating baloney sandwich instead... is not Christianity. In fact, the duty to love oneself is necessary in respect to Jesus' command, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The only people I have known to be the most dead to self are extreme drug addicts. They don't care if they die doing drugs. They don't care if they rob you for money to pay for their drugs. They are truly "dead to self."

Your assertion was that Conditionalism is relatively new and it was to that assertion that I responded with the list of church fathers. What I meant by that is that the doctrine is new in popularity and acceptance. While it would be good to prove that this is not just a 19-21st century excursion, I will say that the seed of many errors are to be found in the Church fathers. The fact that one may entertain them, and the rest of the Church did not embrace their doctrine, says something. They were working out many doctrines as time advanced; the question is, were they correct, or were they a deviation? I have read most of the writings before the 2nd century. However, I have not looked specifically to find and evaluate their views on future punishment.

Modern "Tolerance" is Communist Social Engineering used of the Devil! It sounds all so nice. Yet what is it? "Tolerance" is accepting everything without judgment BUT Christianity, Maleness, and Whiteness. You can disparage, harass, be as ugly as you wish against Christians, and it is "tolerated." It is Post Modernism's "There are no Absolutes" mentality (which totally contradicts its own premise), saying that "true" religion is accepting all religions equally. If you say that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life; and no one comes to the Father but by Him, you have committed "Tolerance" heresy in their eyes! What is a bad philosophy is becoming a worldwide religion.

An infant, up to the time they can understand the difference between right and wrong, is not "unclean." God does not count a transgression as "sin" unless the person committing it has the mental and spiritual capacity to understand that it is a sin. Your position indicates that God would judge a person and send them to hell when the person was not able to understand what they did wrong. We know that position is false. Pelagius couldn't have stated it better.

This is false. Throughout Christian history there have been conditionalists: First Clement (late 1st century) Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st century) Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st or early 2nd century) Irenaeus (2nd century) Instead of a copy and paste from a website as proof, would it not be better to actually prove this? I'm willing to look at your references! (Irenaeus would not surprise me, he had some unorthodox views that the rest of the Church did not follow.)

He denied the word death carried with it the connotation of separation. In every Greek lexicon I consulted it was so. Ahhhh... the Greek must be wrong! Plato, a Greek, used the word that way!

Omegaman, you stated... Probably my largest objection to the Arminian few,is I believe it deprives God of Glory, by instead of salvation being soley by grace, it puts man in control of his own salvation, claiming that man is the one who decides to believe, and that results in salvation... You are objecting to a strawman of your own invention. What statement in the Works of Arminius states that Free-Will is the cause of salvation? How about in the Five Articles of the Remonstrants? I repented of Arminianism, about in 2013 No, you repented of Pelagianism.

this debate between the followers of Calvin, and the followers of Arminias, the five objections of the Arminian camp, came to be declared to be heresy, at the Synod of Dort. And all Protestantism was condemned in the heretic Martin Luther in the Edict of the Diet of Worms. A Church Council decided it, and therefore we can dismiss Protestantism forever as being proven heresy! This was before the Synod of Dort, and therefore any gathering of heretics holds no force on Christian truth unless it agrees with the Edict of the Diet!

While the Wager is not Biblical, it is logical. I believe that it was not stated to be anything but a philosophical argument. As a philosophical argument, it "makes sense" to the average person. However, casting your lot with a religion on that basis alone is a fool's errand. Who is to say that the Wager could not be argued for almost any religion; Christian or not? Could it by itself not be just as valid for Islam? Hinduism? The Wager has to have more to it than just itself. It has to be based in truth. There is no virtue in believing a lie.

To me, the historical tradition of eternal punishment and the Scriptures that support it are clear. While not a salvation issue, I find that the annihilation position is based far too much in a philosophical argument than in Scripture. If you have to explain away half of the passages that deal with eternal punishment to arrive at where you desire, something is wrong. Every position has a few difficult passages to deal with, but when you have to turn the Bible on its ear to prove a point, I tend to believe that something is not healthy, and potentially dangerous in that position. When I see things like this, a flag goes up and I ask myself, what does Scripture say? On this basis I find annihilation wanting. The twisting's and turnings of Sophistry is no substitute for Scripture. Secondly, I do ask myself, what is someone to gain by rejecting eternal punishment? Is it an effort to prove that they are more correct than the majority? Is it to have a point to argue that their position/denomination is more correct than others, and therefore we should yield to whatever else they say? This is what I have seen from my interactions with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Lastly, while not an essential for salvation, I wonder at the commitment and passion to disprove eternal punishment. Historically speaking, the issue is late in Christian history, and dominates in groups that I would not want to hold hands with doctrinally.