water baptism or just belief?
-
-
First Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
Does water baptism saves?Does believing and faith alone saved?
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Is that all the evidence you have. You just blow off the rest of 1 Cor and John 6, Hebrews and everywhere communion is spoken of in the most literal terms (never symbolic) and rest on the word remembrance?
You'll even have a problem with this word, because it is a sacrificial term straight from the Jewish passover liturgy.
The word is anamnesis in Greek. There are all kinds of words that can be used in place of remember, and we see them used in the NT, but never in conjuction with the Lord's Supper. Anamnesis is only used when describing the Lord's Supper and one place in Hebrews if I recall correctly. Properly understood, it is an event made present, not like remembering a great play in a football game in the 60's. Anamnesis is an event, not recalling, but a making present.
Again, just like baptism, the evidence that Jesus is present in the Eucharist is overwhelming and the only thing that Protestants can bring up is "remembrance" as if it translates directly into English.
In 1Cor, Paul distinguishes between that which is sacrificed to demons and also that those who partake of the body and blood of Christ unworthily are guilty of literally murdering Jesus (guilty of His body and blood).
If Paul was a Protestant, there is no way he would ever, ever say such a thing. Unworthily partaking of a symbol will make one guilty of murdering Jesus? Absurd.
I'll just refer to one verse for those with little faith in what Jesus told us:
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Jesus never backed down from the literal meaning of the Eucharist and even allowed His disciples to leave without correction.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Is that all the evidence you have. You just blow off the rest of 1 Cor and John 6, Hebrews and everywhere communion is spoken of in the most literal terms (never symbolic) and rest on the word remembrance?
You'll even have a problem with this word, because it is a sacrificial term straight from the Jewish passover liturgy.
The word is anamnesis in Greek. There are all kinds of words that can be used in place of remember, and we see them used in the NT, but never in conjuction with the Lord's Supper. Anamnesis is only used when describing the Lord's Supper and one place in Hebrews if I recall correctly. Properly understood, it is an event made present, not like remembering a great play in a football game in the 60's. Anamnesis is an event, not recalling, but a making present.
Again, just like baptism, the evidence that Jesus is present in the Eucharist is overwhelming and the only thing that Protestants can bring up is "remembrance" as if it translates directly into English.
In 1Cor, Paul distinguishes between that which is sacrificed to demons and also that those who partake of the body and blood of Christ unworthily are guilty of literally murdering Jesus (guilty of His body and blood).
If Paul was a Protestant, there is no way he would ever, ever say such a thing. Unworthily partaking of a symbol will make one guilty of murdering Jesus? Absurd.
I'll just refer to one verse for those with little faith in what Jesus told us:
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Jhn 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Jesus never backed down from the literal meaning of the Eucharist and even allowed His disciples to leave without correction.
You are missing a very important key is that Jesus has given us the Holy Spirit which lives in us and not on us.
The Word is written in our hearts and in our born again spirits!
Your focus and beliefs are to much on the external than the internal relationship, which is spiritual and supernatural!
What make my parent aways stay alive in me is the rememberance of them, and the rememberance of what Jesus did for us on the cross abd before the cross is what keep me in love with Him, and in the spiritual true communion with Him, in that rememberance of His word of grace and love towards me , even though I will always be unworthy only through the rememberance of what He did is where my Joy , peace, and asurrance in my salavation and righteousness which I will not refuse which is to good to be true.
Yes! rememberance is more than a symbolic in a sense it make my relationship even stronger as I think of all the good things which comes from above and what Jesus did on the cross as to shed his blood and remember the stripes on His body everytime I take part in the lORD SUPPER it brings rememberance of who my Father God is in my life, and what I have.
Yes, one word from God can change the whole world , and that one word is enough for me (remember) in 1 cor!
You need a real revelation of it, and then you might change your philosophy.
It is the same as John 1:1 with the JHW also they had to change the word IS God or the Word is God to A God which changes the whole concept, and principle of who Jesus really is as God Jehovah.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Again, you are using the word remembrance (Grk: Anamnesis) as a verb, like remembering something in the past. This word anamnesis is a noun.
The only other place in the NT that this noun is used is:
Hbr 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
The passover sacrifices didn't actually forgive sins, but the sins were made present. It wasn't about remembering a sin from the past that was forgiven, but sins that were committed in the past and remained with them.
We aren't the one's changing the meaning of the word. It is you who insist on forcing an English meaning upon the word when it is a sacrificial term.
As usual, you only need look at one word to form a doctrine and you don't even know how the word was used in OT (LXX) and NT. Furthermore you have to ignore Jesus and Paul who used no symbolic language.
Guilty of murdering Jesus if you take communion in an unworthy manner and can eat and drink judgement upon yourself. You might as well scratch 1Cor 11:27-30 out of your bible because you have no explanation from your theological system.
Actually, the JHW aren't completely without warrant in their translation of John 1:1 because the Greek article is in the text. However, the article was used for correct grammar and never translated the way the JHW do. The real problem they create in John 1:1 is by making Jesus another god, thus making two Gods which even they don't believe. Thus, the real problem is with their interpretation in which they must say that "Jesus was like a god" which definitely is not in the text.
I am quite aware of the tricks the JHW use. I had a couple of them at my house recently. A younger female and and elderly man. The man seemed interested in verse after verse I showed them, the the female just started making wild guesses at what they meant and actually got a little hostile. They clearly don't have interest in those who know too much.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
No. This discussion about whether we want to honour Christ's New Covenant or not. We are not in the Old Covenant, we are not bound by it, nor do we practice the rituals of the Old Covenant.
We are part of the New Covenant and participate in the New Covenant Commandments and rituals as established by Christ.
If you think that there are none then explain the following:
Luke 22:19-20 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
Is this a "ritual" or just a general comment on Christ's part? And if a general comment, then why did the Apostles continue to do "this" after Christ's death and resurrection?
The Apostles learned how to do God will in contexts of the scriptures, and in 1 Corthians Jesus said do this as aften and in rememberance of ME!
That is not meaning that some magic show will happen or something supernatual like your catholic eucharist and getting wet!
one love
I will leave jdubya to educate you on the proper understanding of "remembrance" in this case; but for my purposes, is this a ritual to be done or not?
When Jesus said we were to do this, are we do do this, or to never do this?
If we are to do this, is this not a ritual that we are to do?
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Again, you are using the word remembrance (Grk: Anamnesis) as a verb, like remembering something in the past. This word anamnesis is a noun.
The only other place in the NT that this noun is used is:
Hbr 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
The passover sacrifices didn't actually forgive sins, but the sins were made present. It wasn't about remembering a sin from the past that was forgiven, but sins that were committed in the past and remained with them.
We aren't the one's changing the meaning of the word. It is you who insist on forcing an English meaning upon the word when it is a sacrificial term.
As usual, you only need look at one word to form a doctrine and you don't even know how the word was used in OT (LXX) and NT. Furthermore you have to ignore Jesus and Paul who used no symbolic language.
Guilty of murdering Jesus if you take communion in an unworthy manner and can eat and drink judgement upon yourself. You might as well scratch 1Cor 11:27-30 out of your bible because you have no explanation from your theological system.
Actually, the JHW aren't completely without warrant in their translation of John 1:1 because the Greek article is in the text. However, the article was used for correct grammar and never translated the way the JHW do. The real problem they create in John 1:1 is by making Jesus another god, thus making two Gods which even they don't believe. Thus, the real problem is with their interpretation in which they must say that "Jesus was like a god" which definitely is not in the text.
I am quite aware of the tricks the JHW use. I had a couple of them at my house recently. A younger female and and elderly man. The man seemed interested in verse after verse I showed them, the the female just started making wild guesses at what they meant and actually got a little hostile. They clearly don't have interest in those who know too much.
I get the same reaction from Catholics and other religions here in Germany, because they see I know to much.
I am not a greek and hebrew scholar like you FAL so you might be right with the greek translation or greek interpretation but I am not Greek neither am I a greek translator and some greek teachers and scholar I can't believe as being infallible like the bible, sorry.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Evan, The bible is only infallible in its original words and meanings, which is either in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic (Tobit).
There have likely been some copying errors in the manuscripts that are used. The bible you have has been translated and in certain places has been interpreted. While most interpretations in English are generally pretty accurate, they don't always translate well directly into English.
Your English language bible is not infallible in and of itself. Thus when you see remember or remembrance, they are simply the best available translations without having to use several words to describe the exact meaining. That is the trade off made so that your bible can remain readable.
Are you saying that you have Catholics in Germany that try to evangelize you?
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Evan, The bible is only infallible in its original words and meanings, which is either in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic (Tobit).
There have likely been some copying errors in the manuscripts that are used. The bible you have has been translated and in certain places has been interpreted. While most interpretations in English are generally pretty accurate, they don't always translate well directly into English.
Your English language bible is not infallible in and of itself. Thus when you see remember or remembrance, they are simply the best available translations without having to use several words to describe the exact meaining. That is the trade off made so that your bible can remain readable.
Are you saying that you have Catholics in Germany that try to evangelize you?
No! I never seen any Catholic doing evangelism, but I do talk to many here!
I have interviewed many Charismatic catholic here which I will have on youtube shortly!
They believe in speaking in tongues and almost the same as pentecostal.
BTW are you a Greek and Hebrew scholar or teacher???
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
Edited by evangelist on 10/18/2009 17:05:51
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
i always thought is was funny when i was evangelical that most evangelicals don't evangelize. evan... how many people at your church actually get out and evangelize? i would say in my experience it was probably about 5% of the evangelicals actually did evangelism.... and half of that was easy evangelism,, you know trying to save people that are already christians..... just not going to your church..... hee hee.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
BTW are you a Greek and Hebrew scholar or teacher???
No, not even close. I haven't studied Hebrew, but I have been studying Greek on my own for a couple of years and get occasional help from some Greek Orthodox friends.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
i always thought is was funny when i was evangelical that most evangelicals don't evangelize. evan... how many people at your church actually get out and evangelize? i would say in my experience it was probably about 5% of the evangelicals actually did evangelism.... and half of that was easy evangelism,, you know trying to save people that are already christians..... just not going to your church..... hee hee.
We have many house groups and cell groups which take turn evangelizing in our church at lest once or twice a month.
I was a radical street Evangelust so I did it five days every week, which made me well know on the stree and door to door in my twn Kassel Germany.
It is the willl of the church that we do evangelize at lest twice a month or more that the tean do this, as pentecostal it is normal.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
BTW are you a Greek and Hebrew scholar or teacher???
No, not even close. I haven't studied Hebrew, but I have been studying Greek on my own for a couple of years and get occasional help from some Greek Orthodox friends.
Me niether , and a matter of fact greek doesn't even interest me or Hebrew, forget being a scholar at it.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
I am so glad to see more believe that believing and faith saved, rather than getting wet or baptized , praise the Lord for many who accept and knows the truth!
Praise the Lord!
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Too bad Jesus said otherwise. Hopefully, He will understand their ignorance, but I pity the teacher who led them astray by the false teaching that baptism is not part of our salvation.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Too bad Jesus said otherwise. Hopefully, He will understand their ignorance, but I pity the teacher who led them astray by the false teaching that baptism is not part of our salvation.
Baptism is a part of the christian walk just like reading your bibles , praying, feed the poor , love your enemies, go to church and pay tithes , give offerings and sooner or latter also get baptized or wet and etc!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 10/13/2007
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by evangelist
quote:
Originally posted by Faith_at_Large
Too bad Jesus said otherwise. Hopefully, He will understand their ignorance, but I pity the teacher who led them astray by the false teaching that baptism is not part of our salvation.
Baptism is a part of the christian walk just like reading your bibles , praying, feed the poor , love your enemies, go to church and pay tithes , give offerings and sooner or latter also get baptized or wet and etc!
one love
HOW? Baptism is not a mere "part of the Christian walk" - it signifies the beginning of the Christian walk... all of the other things you listed are "works", buddy... whether you like it or not... and they have nothing in common with baptism (which is an act credited to none other than God Almighty, and not to our own actions).
"There are water and tears; the water of baptism and the tears of repentance." -St. Ambrose“
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS