Tragedy of War RECOVERED! LISTEN!

[Barb]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

I think you misread my post.

doubtless-certainly: certainly or almost certainly
certain: impossible to doubt or deny

Synonyms: no doubt, without a doubt, almost certainly, without question, beyond question, beyond a shadow of a doubt,



please reflect again on the argued section of my post..


"Doubtless, it HAS done much for the Kingdom."

Thank You.

I read it in a rush...

Sorry...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You are delusional. Jefferson's own words establish his position. Read the words of Abigail Adams when she heard he would be President. She all but referred to him as an atheist. This was not an uncommon sentiment among religious people at that time. Just because you plug your ears and shout, "LALALALALALA" doesn't mean it isn't true.

LALALALALALA all day long over his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

You can look into his history and find the issue with Jefferson. He had a bad taste in his mouth (from his upbringing) over the Anglican Church and his bad impression of the Catholic Church during the French Revolution. That certainly didn't make him a Deist. You can be a revisionist if you want.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Wow it is amazing what we can learn on AFF......invoking the name of Jesus Christ in baptism is now just a religious chant.....and receiving the Holy Ghost is nothing more than an emotional response....or maybe it should be devoid of any emotion...........I guess you learn something new every day......or NOT!

You are right, "chant" may be a bad term, "incantation" may be a better choice.

You fail to understand what it means to do something "In the name of."

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

LALALALALALA all day long over his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

You can look into his history and find the issue with Jefferson. He had a bad taste in his mouth (from his upbringing) over the Anglican Church and his bad impression of the Catholic Church during the French Revolution. That certainly didn't make him a Deist. You can be a revisionist if you want.

In the very statement you quote he denies the Deity of Christ, and furthermore his statement as to those who pervert Christianity was not just the Anglican church...


"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It doesn't rule out a response to the Gospel, or the need for the Spirit.

Then this 'finished work' view, so called, includes the necessity of a response to the gospel and the need to receive the Spirit.

Therefore, the issue is simply a matter of 'what constitutes the Biblical response to the gospel, and what constitutes the receiving of the Spirit, according to the Bible.'

And therefore, you assertions about 'water/spirit teaching' being spmehow fundamentally contrary to this 'finished work' view are false.

Again, "Therefore, the issue is simply a matter of 'what constitutes the Biblical response to the gospel, and what constitutes the receiving of the Spirit, according to the Bible.'"

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Since one chapter after his discourse with Nicodemus Jesus again brings up "water" in relation to receiving eternal life, I think it is safe to say that a better translation of John 3:5 would have been, "born of the water, even of the Spirit".

But again, I still hold that baptism is "for the remission of sins".

I think that "and" can also be defined as "also". In context it could also mean "even".

However, when I review everything that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, I see him talking about being "saved", i.e., "that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17). And I remember Jesus' words in Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

So, I appreciate what you've written and I'll think about it some more.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Barb

I read it in a rush...

Sorry...

no worries!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think that "and" can also be defined as "also". In context it could also mean "even".

However, when I review everything that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, I see him talking about being "saved", i.e., "that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17). And I remember Jesus' words in Mark 16:16 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved."

So, I appreciate what you've written and I'll think about it some more.

Yes, he who believes and is baptized shall (future event) be saved, but saved by what? Paul tels us in Titus 3:5-6....

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

So believing and baptism are steps that take us towards the thing that saves us, namely the indwelling Spirit of God.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Yes, he who believes and is baptized shall (future event) be saved, but saved by what? Paul tels us in Titus 3:5-6....

So believing and baptism are steps that take us towards the thing that saves us, namely the indwelling Spirit of God.

But the Word also states that John preached the "baptism of repentance" - Mark 1:4; "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation..." - II Cor 7:10; The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..." - I Peter 3:21.

When you couple these verses with Titus 3:5-6, you end up with Acts 2:38 again.

I don't think the Apostles expressed their belief in the way we try to slap terminology down on everything. It was simply the Gospel to them. Not a "Stepper" formula.

On another note, was it the Gospel or the response to? II Thess 1:8 and I Peter 4:17 don't appear to make a distinction when they call on us to "obey" the Gospel. How can you make a distinction between what the Gospel is and your response to it when they simply ONLY say - this is what the end will be if you don't "obey"? Anyway, I've always noticed that and wondered at it.