|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 28, 2009 7:22:21 GMT -5
A.) Christ has all authority in heaven and earth
B.) Christ did not authorize the use of Mechanical Musical Instruments in the worship toward God (If so, then where?).
Conclusion: Therefore, Mechanical Musical Instruments are brought into the worship services by the authorization of men.
If your church chooses to do so, how can one advocate that Christ is the head of that church since he obviously only has some or most but definitely not all authority?
Did Christ die for a church to which he is no longer head?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 19:29:47 GMT -5
Excuse me? I think that you should study a little more before you make that assumption. Maybe you should check your own lifestyle, are you saved? . You cant deny the goodness that came out out of Martin Luthers, and Johnathen Edwards ministry; they both produced huge revivals. One was called the Reformation, and the other the Great Awakening. They both derived their teachings from Augustine. So dont give me that crap about them being a couple of decievers. Futhermore stop spreading your doctrine about people being able to lose their salvation and that they can live a sinless life, thats a bunch of garbage and you know it. Stop laying burdens on peoples shoulders that they cant bare. The Bible talks about Martin Luther and Johnathan Edwards: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own body, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the innocent."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 17:22:33 GMT -5
Presuppositions- good word, I like that word, but everybody has presuppositions including yourself. Im not sure how much studying you have done of church history, but your ideas stem from a heritics named Pelagious wh was refuted by Augustine long ago. Our debate is the same debate that Erasmus and Martin Luther had in the 1500's. However they were more articulate than both you and I, and Luther more so because he knew God better than we do, for he was closer to him then we are. Here is a piece of writing that Luther wrote Erasmus in responce to free will: "It is then fundamentally necessary and wholsome fr for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contigently, but that he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal and infallable will. This bombshell knocks "free will" flat and utterly shatters it ... You insist that we should learn the immutability of Gods will, while forbidding us to know the immutablility of his forknowledge! Do you suppose he does not will what he foreknows, or that he does not forknow what He wills? If he wills what he foreknows, his will is eternal and changeless, because his nature so. From which he it follows, by resistless logic, that alll we do, however may appear to us to be done mutably and contigently, is in reality done necessarily and immuatblly in respect to Gods will..." Martin Luther 1.) God is out of reach though he is a God near and far off. Why do you think people oppose the Gospel is it because they are not smart enough to accept it, or because they are not logical enough to figure it out? No, that is not the case at all. First you know from Romans 3 that it says , "...there is no one who seeks God... there is know one who truly understands." Also in John 1 it says that the light shines in darkness but the darkness has never comprehended it. So how then can they recieve that Gospel if their disposition is to follow sin and the devil? They cant. No matter how much you try to persuade them they will not budge unless God chges their wills. Thats why the scripture says, "No one can come to me unless the Father draws them..." Even if you give them all the evidence that is needed, even a miracle they will not come as you know from the scrptures. 2.) This postions never states that people can never be aware of their salvation, but if your life has never changed and your will has never turned to Christ then your probably not saved. Not that a person when they accept Christ needs to be perfect, but somewhere down the line there should some kind of change. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' Mthew 7 21 Sir, why do you idolize men who were not members of the Lord's church? Or any man.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 14:18:42 GMT -5
Your still not getting it. Paul was confident becuase they had the Spirit. People who posses the Spirit are guranteed succes. Another reason he had confidence in the church of Philipi was becuase God was working in these fellows in a special way. Conversly, we see that in other letters that Paul wrote, he rebuked the Churches. Yes they were faithful, but was it because of their own effort? I think not. You make it seem that their faithfullness comes from the same will that they had before there were regenerated. Also, It seems to me that you think that obedience comes from sheer will power alone and not God's power. If that were so why did Paul use these 3 pwerful statmens concerning that it is by Gods power alone that enables people to do his will and not by human effort alone: 1.) "... and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" 2.) "... that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." 3.) ... "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power." Im not saying that Human will has been abolished, but what I am saying is that succes comes from God alone. Therfore it could not be possible for them to remain faithful with that same will before they were regenerated, for that will was in bongage and a slave to sin. Further they were not able to listen nor make a move towards God. These Christians were faithful becuase of a couple of factors: 1.) They were faithful because of Paul's prayers.. "And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more... that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ... " 2.) They were faithful because of God wanted then to be faithful. We know that since God ordains the means as well as the ends, he used Pauls prayers to preserve his saints in order to make them faithful. Next, he preserved them for his own purposes that his name would be glorified in the world at that time. Lastly, we know from scripture that he was working in them to enable and impower them to be faithful for his own name sake, for Paul said himself, "... for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." People who have the Spirit are led by God and will never fail at following Him, for he himself says we who are Christians "walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans) He also has confidence that their hearts have been circumcised by the Spirit, "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit..." Sir, we all "get" what you're saying yet we know it to be unscriptural. Your minds clouded with many presuppositions. I suggest studying each passage within it's own context. According to your view: God's out of reach --> We can't know if we're saved --> You've transformed "Walking according to the Spirit" into some sort of mystical magic trick --> You've abolished the free-will of man --> etc. We "get" it. Why don't you "get" it?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 27, 2009 7:26:17 GMT -5
Your boasting about your own strength. You reduced preseverance to a deed that is produced by ones own effort, and not produced by Gods Spirit, which is wrong. I'm not boasting. Had not God revealed His righteous ways, I could in no way obey them. Your statment about Philippians 1:6 holds no validity whatsoever becuase Paul said that God would finish what he started. It is God who intiates salvation in someones life and it is God who finishes. A contextual approach to this verse destroys your argument. What was Paul confident of: That God would finish the good work which he had begun in them. Why was Paul confident: Because they were faithful. Had these men not been faithful Paul would not have been confident. This verse does not abolish the free-will of man to change his ways. Once again, Paul's confidence does not necessitate irresistible perseverance John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. You must be a baptist because you forgot to quote the next verse: "It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." How does God draw men --> by teaching them How does God teach men --> through the preaching of the Gospel. Who comes to the father --> Those who have heard and learned. Man can choose to hear, believe, and learn the things of God. You cannot abolish the free-will of man.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 22:45:22 GMT -5
Are you ok bra? Because it looks like to me that you did not read the passage that supports eternal security. Philippians 1:6 "Being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Paul was confident of this thing. Paul's confidence does not necessitate the impossibility of apostasy. Their good works gave Paul this confidence. Their salvation is still conditional. Do you read scripture in context or do you pick and choose what you want to here. Is jesus not the author of life? Also, is he not the author and finsher of our faith? Are you the author and finisher of your faith? "And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Hebrews 5:9 Do you think the reason why you have not commited some heinous sin is because it has been ny your own strength? Or do you soley depend on God's favor and power to keep you from falling away? If you do, then you believe in Grace. If not, then your confused. I have not committed a "heinous sin" because I have chosen to keep myself in the love of God. I am dependent on Christ because he has the words of Eternal Life. Had he not revealed those words, I'd never be able to keep myself in the love of God. Without God's guidance I'd never be able to walk in the light.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 20:53:47 GMT -5
7.) If he repentse for his sin it means he always was saved, but until he repents he cant come back to Church. My point exactly. You've chosen: B.) God will over look this sin... (Read 1 John 3:7 'Do not be deceived...')
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 20:50:30 GMT -5
So it the verse stands, "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ." Eternal security stands as Biblical truth. Ones eternity is conditionally secured. Do not be deceived the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. There's no security in the doctrine of OSAS.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 16:22:59 GMT -5
Concerning a Christian who becomes addicted to alchohal for some weired reason, God has given intructions on how to deal with situations like that: 1.) Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 2.) When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are(G) to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5) Im very familiar with this command, for my church has had to use this command in the last year. The man who commited adultery and sexual immorality has been absent from our congregation for over a year now. Is he still a Christian? We dont know because he has not repented. Dont worry though, this was done with love and respect. We still talk to this man every once in a while expressing how much we miss him and admonishing him towards repentance. Although we still keep our bounds as the scripture says, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, DRUNKARD, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one." So there you have it. So you and your congregation do not know if this man is saved. Furthermore, this man can't know whether or not he is saved either. If this man believes that he is saved then he believes that one can be a drunkard and inherit the kingdom of heaven --> 1 Corinthians 6:10. Too which we are told not to be deceived. If he does not believe that he is saved then he never really was saved (According to your doctrine.) How then can anyone know in this life that one can be saved (according to your doctrine) They can't.Those men you listed did not teach the truth and were not from God.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 26, 2009 7:52:30 GMT -5
Is a person saved if is life has not been changed, probably not. This is ludicrous. You believe a man who has obeyed the Gospel and has been a Christian for ten years can get hooked on alcohol and either... A.) He was never saved to begin with... (In which case no security can be found in your doctrine.) B.) God will over look this sin... (Read 1 John 3:7 'Do not be deceived...') Are you attempting to deceive us?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 25, 2009 17:54:00 GMT -5
Man is not able to Choose God, but is able to make choices all the time. Man can do nothing to impress God, nor can he choose to follow God unless that ability is given to him from God. Man will always choose evil and will never choose good. He may be polite and may be curtiuous and evn so far as to have a moral satndard, but he never will choose to follow the first commandment. I wish we could discuss these Bible verses.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 25, 2009 17:49:50 GMT -5
Of course God hardened Pharaohs heart. The question is how did God harden pharaohs heart.
I believe the story tells us how.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 25, 2009 17:44:40 GMT -5
"When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step that conversion to God, which in scripture is entirely ascribed tp grace..." - John Calvin I can't find that Bible verse.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 25, 2009 17:37:35 GMT -5
Hey. I've been studying the subject of the conditional security of the believer for a while and I've seen a lot of verses I can't refute. However, there's one verse that continues to stop me from accepting it. I'm curious if there's anyone who believes in conditional security who can explain this verse. 1 John 3:6 says, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him." If all sinners have never seen Him or known Him, wouldn't that rule out the possibility that someone could fall away? Burning bush, Simply put, I believe this passage is speaking of those who believe and claim to be Christians yet also believed and claimed that sin has no consequences toward their souls eternal destination. This would seem to directly contradict our Once Saved Always Saved friends. "Whosoever" is not a "Whosoever without exception". If this passage means "whosoever without exception" then anyone who ever sins never really was saved because they never really knew nor saw Christ. Thus one can never have eternal security in the doctrine of OSAS. I strongly take the position that John's addressing a false religion that was being spread. One that taught a man could live in sin and still be a Christian. These men who taught this false religion also challenged the apostleship of John. I can't help but wonder if John had this in mind when he wrote verse 6. We see in the first chapter of 1 John: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life... That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you..." 1 John 1:1-3 Here John appealed to his (the apostles) eye witness experiences with Christ to plea with these brethren over the validity of his doctrine which he received from God. Those who taught that one could sin and still be a Christian had not seen nor known Christ like the apostles had. Thus, their doctrines should have no authoritative influence over John's doctrine which taught; "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not..." "He that committeth sin is of the devil..." To answer your question: This passage does not refer to "all (without exception) sinners." I believe if we keep this passage within context then we'll find this passage to be dealing with the false teachers themselves who were also characterized as the anti-christs in 1 John 2:18. Note: It's important to remember the warning of 1 John 3:7 which says "Do not be decieved..." If one were to deceive you, wouldn't they tell you that one can work unrighteousness and still be saved? Take care, Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Jul 11, 2009 21:45:23 GMT -5
Baptism was not a new NT thing, but was a regular part of Judaism called "micvahs". It was a matter of rendering the unclean, clean again. It had nothing to do with being dirty, but spiritually unfit (unclean) to even enter the Temple. Once converted, a new NT believer would submit to being Mikvahed (Baptized) to symbolize their acceptance that they were spiritually unclean and needed to be cleaned. The Mikvah was always in living water, not stagnant water. It was also not a "one time" thing. Many that had come to be mikvahed by John were Jews that had been Mikvahed often as they had become "unclean". Mary became "unclean" when she gave birth to Jesus and had to offer sacrifices. She was not a sinner for having a child, merely rendered unclean for the prescribed days (see Lev.). As for the "Sinners Prayer", I have lead many in it, but woud rather see their fruit afterwards continue in endurance until the end. Many seem to rely on that "one time" prayer as their "get out of jail free card", like getting their clock punched. They trust in a prayer, and then go on living in sin, damned for hell. A maariage starts with "I do's" but will never last unless both are committed in love and obedience. The Sinner must not just try and avoid hell, but truly be convicted a transgressor, breaking the Holy Commands of God. He should see sin in a new light and have a hatred for it, and a thirst for living righeously. The grace of God which brings salvation, teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly and righteously in this life (see Titus) and Paul teaches us the instructions in righteousness are found in the Scriptures (which only included Torah and Prophets when he was writing). I guess that is why God defines "good doctrine" as not forsaking His Torah (Prov. 4:2). Sad to see so many have. Water Baptism is a New Testament "thing." It was instituted by Christ and performed by the authority of Christ for (in order to obtain) the remission of sin. Matthew 28:18 Acts 2:38 Your argument is made from an unscriptural and scripture-less erroneous view of the New Testament pattern and dispensation of the Old and New Covenants. You've accused the New Testament Christians of being entangled in the yoke of bondage, returning to and being justified by the old law because as you have just written: "The grace of God which brings salvation, teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly and righteously in this life (see Titus) and Paul teaches us the instructions in righteousness are found in the Scriptures (which only included Torah and Prophets when he was writing).The New Testament "instructions" can be found in the New Testament. It is for this reason that the New Testament was written. The Apostles wrote down the New Testament pattern and doctrine that we may have fellowship together with them (1 John 1:3). As the Apostles went through the cities they delivered decrees for the New Testament church (Christians) to keep (Acts 16:4). Before the word of God was perfected, completed, or finished men received miraculous inspiration, prophecy, or tongues in order for the New Testament Christians to be built up in the New Testament faith where the Apostles writings were not to be found. Men in the New Testament were condemned for Old Testament justification because as Paul said; the Old Testament is written for our learning and not for our pattern (Romans 15:4). The Sinners Prayer is false, read Acts 10.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 29, 2009 7:36:31 GMT -5
What is the seal of the New Covenant? " Study to show thyself approved unto God..." 2 Timothy 2:15 Your interpretation, not refutation. I've also showed the only correct and contextual interpretation I might add. That's why you won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Stop adding to God's Word, more presumption. I've made no presumption. I've only stated the fact. The eunuch had nothing to rejoice about until he got saved. Notice Phillip told the Ethiopian, '...you may.' He did not tell him you must. You did not answer the question again...please do so. Why does Phillip say; '...you may.' He did not tell him you must. Because everyone who believes on Jesus Christ has the opportunity to escape the wrath of God. Then he was baptized and went away rejoicing.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 29, 2009 7:24:06 GMT -5
The blood of Christ has washed me clean, the Holy Spirit has confirmed that in me despite the machinations of your mind. Again more presumptions. I am part of the body of Christ. You are not a part of the body of Christ, you are the church of Christ. Thus it is easy to deduct you must not be saved and you are in error. You need to leave your traditions and get with the body of Jesus Christ! Get this Jonathan, the body of Christ is....the body of Christ. "And he is the head of the Body, the church." Colossians 1:18
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 28, 2009 15:55:08 GMT -5
Then, why in the world is this discussion even going on? There is power in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, though: Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. ...... Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses........ Anyway, i'll try to stay out of this debate from now on. I know it can get more confusing when more than a couple are debating. The Holy Ghost has power and he gave miraculous power to the Apostles ( Ye shall receive power...) You have not been baptized with the Holy Ghost and never will be.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 28, 2009 15:48:38 GMT -5
Wrong, you have not proved that Cornelius was not saved until he was water baptized. I will copy and paste this one more time. Be sure to read it this time. [/color]( Acts 10:45) has reference to the miraculous impartation of speaking in tongues that was a sign unto the Jews in order to confirm Peter’s words in verse 34 of Acts 10 (Hebrews 2:3,4). [2]The purpose of the Holy Spirit baptism was confirmation not conversion. ( Hebrews 2:3,4) [3]Cornelius was not saved at the point of Holy Spirit baptism as this was before he heard the words commanded by God that he ought to do in order to be saved ( Acts 10:6,22,33 11:15). [/ul] About Cornelius: Cornelius was a devout man who feared God and prayed to the God of the Bible, and gave alms always (Acts 10:2). (Yet was not saved)Cornelius already knew that: (Starting in verse 37 “These things ye know…”) - God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power (38)
- That Jesus went about doing good, healing and casting out daemons (38)
- Jesus was hanged on a tree (39)
- God raised him up on the third day (40)
- That everyone who believed in his name would receive remission of sins (43) (It is because Cornelius believed on the Lord Jesus Christ that God sent Peter to command him to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of his sins. )
Cornelius knew all of this yet was not saved. So much for faith only. Question for you: “Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the same gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?” Acts 11:17 Withstand God from doing what?
We've covered this too, Paul was stating to the JEWS who was he that he could resist God in context of salvation coming to the Gentiles. Paul wasn't there. I'll assume you've read the passage and you mean Peter. You proved my point exactly! Peter believed that by refusing Water Baptism, he would be; hindering, stopping, restraining, and forbidding (Greek: Kolyo) God from bringing salvation to the Gentiles. Peter believed Water Baptism did something, why don't you? We've covered this ground earlier; why won't you just believe what scripture says? Mommy's water will never do, you must have the immersion of the Holy Ghost! I've already refuted this. (Reply #33) To which you replied "I don't have to answer to you." The eunuch rejoicing does not prove your supposition of water baptism requirement either! The reason why the eunuch wasn't rejoicing after the scriptures were revealed to him and he believed was because he was not saved. After he was water baptized, he went on his way rejoicing because he was now saved.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 28, 2009 7:55:07 GMT -5
I deduct by your statement, 'Because I care for your soul.' That you presume myself and many others to be unsaved here. As I explained to you a few times already and I will explain again. Almost 13 years ago, I was born again of the Holy Spirit. I confessed and forsook my sin and trusted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I was water baptized about a month later in obedience to the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, you have erroneously presume that because I am outside of your 'church of Christ', I am not saved. I am in the body of Christ, I am a believer and I obey Christ and the gospel. It is ironic that I hold to many things that you believe; obedience to Christ, original sin and sinful nature is false, etc. Yet, you don't have enough foresight to understand that you will not persuade me with your presumptions, nor your assumptions, nor your suppositions, nor your bad attitude. So be consistent Jonathan; don't post about wasting your time with us, and then come back with some false humility that you care for our souls. That is called hypocrisy, which would of course make you a hypocrite. God bless you. John It was 14 years ago, earlier. "I received Him with godly sorrow that led me to repentance almost 14 years ago." See, you don't even know when you got saved. According to your view there's no way to know either. Sir, you were not saved through the preaching of the Gospel. You believed a false Gospel which is not another. Jesus said in John 8:32 "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Friend, error cannot set you free. If you did not believe the truth about salvation how can you be set free? Your error has caused you to disbelieve the Gospel. As the same one you claim to be your savior said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Since you don't believe that verse (and many others as we have seen) you can't be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins. If you truly believed the Gospel then you would arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. The problem is, you already believe your sins have been washed away. "If you were blind you would have no sin; now you say "We see" therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41 As you stated before "All the Christians, that I know of, here have been immersed in water as an outward expression of an inward change in their hearts and minds."That the denominational world's baptism. Denominations made that up and you believed them over God. That baptism is not in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ because that baptism was not commanded by Jesus Christ. You must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins. You have already admitted that you are not in the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the church of Christ. You do not obey God. "These people draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips. But their heart is far from me and in vain they do worship me. Teaching for doctrines the commandments of Men" Matthew 15:9 You teach error on the unity of the church, salvation, worship, and have a lack of respect for the revealed will of God. You refuse to open your Bible and study to see if the things that I've written are true. When I prove you wrong you metaphorically cross your arms and pout like a child. Then, as one with ADD you completely change Bible passages. It's for these reasons I wrote: "I may be wasting my time..."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 28, 2009 7:22:52 GMT -5
Your core problem Jonathan is that you make contrary statements that contradict the Bible. You say, '...there is no power in the water.' Then you say, 'unless you get in the water in obedience to the Gospel... you are not saved.' The earthly water makes the new birth effectual according to your view. I doubt you will be honest enough with yourself to admit that. There's no more power baptism than their is in belief. Neither are said to have power anywhere in the scriptures. I'm sorry that you can't understand this. Without the earthly water, no new birth can take place. Jesus said "Except ye be born of the water and the spirit you shall not see the kingdom of God."
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 28, 2009 7:20:02 GMT -5
So baptism by the Holy Spirit must be concluded by immersion in the waters of obedience in order to be saved. You still have not proven this supposition from scriptures. I proved that Cornelius was not saved at the point of Holy Spirit Baptism on one of my earlier posts but you have completely ignored it. Acts 8:36-39 ...And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”[c] 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. Notice Phillip told the Ethiopian, '...you may.' He did not tell him you must. It wasn't until after the eunuch was baptized that he went away rejoicing.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 18:12:37 GMT -5
why are you still 'wasting your time'? I care about your soul.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 17:16:29 GMT -5
The scripture do not say. They were most certainly baptized in water because they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Baptism in the name of the Lord is always with water. Acts 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water?... Then he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. " Have you looked at a map of Jerusalem? I can't find a body of water to baptize 3000 people in one day. Baptism in the name of Jesus is with water as I've already shown.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 17:15:12 GMT -5
I have a question: In Acts 10:44-48 "While Peter was still speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished as many as came with Peter because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days." Now the question is did they have to be baptized with water to keep the Holy Spirit they they had already been filled with? Yes they were baptized, and the question has not been should we be baptized but is the power to keep or get the Holy Spirit in the water or in the Faith? They had received the Holy Spirit by their faith. Thanks Ken Ken, That's an interesting question. I'll answer your questions to the best of my ability. These men were filled with the Holy Spirit in the sense that they received a gift from the Holy Spirit: Miraculous speaking in tongues. The scriptures don't tell us whether or not they would have been able to keep this particular gift if they had chosen not to be baptized. In fact, we don't even know if they were still endowed with this gift after baptism. I'd be speaking where the Bible was silent if I answered your question. To speak would be to go beyond that which is written. However, I'd like to suggest: - One thing I'd like to suggest to you is when interpreting "filled with the Holy Spirit" "Gift of the Holy Spirit" "Received the Holy Spirit" to do so within it's own context. There's no universal definition for these terms.
The " power to get or keep the Holy Spirit" is in the individual. The individual chooses to act in obedience. It is through his faith in the operation of God that raises the individual. That is, he has faith that when he obeys God's command to be baptized, that God will forgive his sins. Without this faith, all efforts are futile as there's only one plan of salvation. I have a question for you also: In Acts 11:17 the apostle Peter said; "Who was I to withstand God?" My question to you is, "Withstand God from doing what?"
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 12:38:48 GMT -5
"where" do you suppose that the 3000 were water baptized on the day of Pentecost? Jerusalem? Jordan? What body of water? The scripture do not say. They were most certainly baptized in water because they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Baptism in the name of the Lord is always with water. Acts 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water?... Then he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. "
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 9:03:28 GMT -5
Dear Jonathan, Because your 'church' is named, church of Christ; does not make it so. I don't have a church and I didn't name it. The true 'Church of Christ' is spotless, blameless, holy and obedient to the gospel and commandments of Jesus Christ. These are individuals who are knit together in love for the Truth of Jesus, His Word, and for the brethren. Agreed. We are obedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ which you've chosen to reinterpret as your own. You've created your own plan of salvation and you boast about it. I am not persuaded of your position, it is too bad you could not have been a bit more mature in your communications. Sir, examine yourself. I almost am persuaded that within a few day, there won't be much happening here. Because no one can prove from the scriptures that one is saved by faith alone. Also, no one can justify religious divisions which was also another doctrine that PinPointEvangelism.com created. All the Christians, that I know of, here have been immersed in water as an outward expression of an inward change in their hearts and minds. This baptism cannot be found in the Bible. What are you trying to prove, that we must be part of the 'c of C'? No one comes to the Father except through Christ. One must be a member of the church of Christ. I have dared to spend my precious time interacting with someone who's perception is always right, who can not receive the possibility they might be wrong. I am finished now Jonathan. It's impossible to change my mind with your opinions. Perhaps if you chose to study these passages, we could both come to a knowledge of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 8:54:12 GMT -5
Shirley Phelps doesn't have scripture for what she believes. Yes, and pretty much anyone can take a select group of scripture and make it say whatever they want. What you have basicaly done is started with a position and then worked through various scripture to find the right ones to support your position. After that, you claim that you have the only correct interpretation and those who believe differently are not true belivers. This Is also what cults do. Yes, Phelps has taken certain Scripture and used them to justify her "doctrine"....just as you have. Sir, your problem is that you do not believe the Bible can be understood. All you've done is accuse me a being in a cult. A cult that you created and put me in. I am in the Lord's church, you are not. I wish you would study the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 27, 2009 8:40:55 GMT -5
We can't find a baptism of fire in any of those passage that you've quoted. You've went all the way to the book of Revelation to try to prove that the Baptism of fire is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. You don't even have to leave Matthew 3 to find out what is meant by fire. Read Matthew 3:10 and 12.Though I may be wasting my time, I will supply a little contextual understanding of Matthew 3:11. Context: Jesus is talking to the multitude which was composed of Pharisees, Sadduccees, Repentant, and non repentant men.As John was talking to the multitude he said "... every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit will be cast into the fire..." then, "I ... baptize with water... but he who cometh after me is mightier than I... he shall baptize you with the holy Spirit and with fire... He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire..." In verse 10 and 12 John tells us that fire will be the judgment of those who have not obeyed the Gospel. In verse 11 John said to the multitude (including the Pharisees and Sadduccees) that Jesus will baptize them (inclusive, general) with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Just as not all of them would be baptized with the Holy Spirit neither should all of them be baptized with fire. Though some of them would be baptized with the unquenchable fire, not all would be baptized with the Holy Spirit. It's unreasonable to believe that "Fire" has any sort of positive connotation in this passage. It's obvious that this text is dealing with condemnation for those who bear not good fruit. Acts 2:2 "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." Amazing, how you can pretzel scripture to fit your false teaching. Jonathan, you don't need to waste your time. God bless you. John P.S. You are just like this man! www.youtube.com/user/BibleSaysTVIf exegesis is considered "preztling" scripture, then I'm guilty. You on the other hand have eisegeted this passage.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on May 26, 2009 16:26:43 GMT -5
...and here we have the reason that this debate is pointless. You just as well be debating Shirley Phelps. Shirley Phelps doesn't have scripture for what she believes.
|
|