stevehut Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted March 1, 2004 The apostles could have been wrong? How do you determine which things are right and which were wrong? Shiloh, Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 The apostles could have been wrong? How do you determine which things are right and which were wrong? I have already posted an answer to this. Why are you reposting the question? Ok, here is what I posted in response... again. Steve if you read my above post, you will notice that I said that they ONLY time their teachings are infalliable is when they inspired by Holy Spirit to write Scriptures. Anything they said outside of what is in the Word of God does not have to be taken as infalliable. They did not become all-knowing when they became apostles. Only the Scriptures are to be considered as innerant and effectual for Christian living. Any extra-biblical writings by the apostles do not hold up to that standard are open to scrutiny. Shiloh, But didn't you also say that the writings of the apostles (part of the Bible) are not necessarily true? If you would go back and read my posts, I said that anything they might have written or verbally taught that was not included in Scripture do not have to be considered infalliable. Case in point: Peter got caught up in legalism errors according to Galatians. Paul had to rebuke him for his error. Therefore, being an apostle does not mean that one will not fall into error. Another case in point: Peter was called on the carpet by James and John for going to the house of Cornelius, the centurion. They had not yet understood that Gentiles were included in the New Covenant. Peter had to explain his vision and that it was within the Will of God for Him to be in the house of a Gentile. So I am referring to anything the apostles said, or taught that is not recorded in Scripture. Nothing like that has to be seen as infalliable, and is open to scrutiny. Only the inspired writings of the apostles and the other writers of Scripture must be considered inerrant and infalliable. Really Steve, this is like the second or third time I have explained this. I hope I have made it clear enough this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Shiloh, So anything that Peter or Paul write in the canonical books is genuine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Shiloh, OK, then what was that argument about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1ptr29citizen Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/11/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 1, 2004 Yes, I understand the Gentile part, but what do you mean he didn't identify them? They are identified very clearly as those who HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST. They received the Holy Ghost BEFORE being baptized with water. Can a person who is not saved receive the Holy Ghost? Acts 10 [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? No matter how you look at that - they had already received the Holy Ghost before their water baptism. Well, obviously it is possible to receive the GIFTS of the Holy Ghost (the Gentiles were able to speak in tongues) without being saved. I believe it was Neb that mentioned that earlier. Because it's impossible to be saved without baptism. Don't believe me? Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 sum it up for me. As to the idea of identification, I was replacing the word baptism with identification, because that is shiloh's definition. If you do that, it would say not to forbid water so that the Gentiles can be identified. What? So are we hacking off the fact that they were baptized in water? No. If you wanna use the term "identified into Christ," or something to that effect, it's fine by me. However you must understand that it happens in water. Because it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenLovesMischief Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,791 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/13/1977 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Bull.........there is not 1 verse in the Bible that says that you cannot be saved if you are not baptised. It says to repent and be baptised, but no that if you don't get baptised that you are not saved. You are saved by accepting Jesus as your Savior nothing more nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godrulz Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 885 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1960 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Lord and Savior...Lordship is not optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenLovesMischief Posted March 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,791 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/13/1977 Share Posted March 1, 2004 LOL sorry I was in a hurry and left out Lord. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Well, obviously it is possible to receive the GIFTS of the Holy Ghost (the Gentiles were able to speak in tongues) without being saved. I believe it was Neb that mentioned that earlier. Because it's impossible to be saved without baptism. Don't believe me? Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 sum it up for me. As to the idea of identification, I was replacing the word baptism with identification, because that is shiloh's definition. If you do that, it would say not to forbid water so that the Gentiles can be identified. What? So are we hacking off the fact that they were baptized in water? No. If you wanna use the term "identified into Christ," or something to that effect, it's fine by me. However you must understand that it happens in water. Because it does. First of all, it is not MY definition. One only need to read Scripture to see how it is used. Romans chapter 6 is a good example. The TRUE baptism that saves is being baptized into Christ. The water immersion is not the TRUE baptism, but only serves as an outward testimony. You want to make a ritual part of salvation, and that is bordering on heresy. At best it is leagism. To assert that a physical act is effectual for salvation is incongruant with the rest of scripture which asserts that no physical act can effect salvation. Neither Mark nor Peter assert that water immersion is necessary for salvation. Your understanding of those verses is skewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts