That last sentence is just as valid as my other questions.
Not only does the Bible not record any physical water baptisms using the "titles", but extra-biblical history also shows that the earliest Christians did not use the Trinitarian formula for water baptism.
Not only that, you would be hard-pressed to find a Trinitarian preacher who preaches the BIBLICAL COMMAND for the earliest Christians to abstain from rare and medium rare steaks.
Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.
Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator.
....nor is there any place in the NT where anyone was baptized with someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus....". My official incredibly complex theological position on the matter is, I don't think it matters what one says when one is baptized.
It would be hard to find anyone who preaches against rare or medium rare steaks. Well, maybe I'll preach against rare steaks because thought of a bloody steak is disgusting. Yebshick.....I just shivered at the thought. But do you really think that's what is intended with that command...that we can't eat rare or medium rare steaks?
Well, thanks for all the information I'm already aware of, but you're missing my point. I was raised, even taught in bible school, and even continue to hear today, people get out their "Authorized Text", The King James Version, the book assembled by 47 trinitarians, for a gay king, and declare that it is absolutely perfect in every way. Spotless, infallible, unquestionable, the absolute Word of God in every possible way.
Many will loudly discredit other translations and even the liberal folks that use things like the NIV will cry about my favorite, the NLT. It just surprises me to see people who believe the bible is perfect, say that it has errors. This moves beyond a translation question.....every bible I've seen say, "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19.
What I'm trying to get at is this...if the bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and if all our current translations have mistakes, where can I buy one that's the infallible Word of God?
I see...I think. You are talking about the KJV only people. Funny thing, when I was young I think most protestants were KJV only people. The Revised Standard took a terrible beating because it was the first translation to update language and correct some "errors" and this was seen as an attack of "the Word of God" rather than updating. Frankly, I still find the old Revised Standard a very good translation. Now the NASB was next, and in seemed to get a much better footing with protestants, at least for a little while. Then it came under attack. The NIV has come under attack. The NLT and so on and so forth. When people ask me, "What do you think would be the best translation for me to buy?" my answer is always the same. Go to a Christian bookstore, sit down, read the same passages from as many different translations as you can. And when you are done comparing the translations the one which you are most likely to read is the one you should buy. What's more is that I do not recommend the KJV (althought the New KJV is nice) to most people because archaic English can be easily misunderstood.
I think there are some criticisms that can be legitimate. For example, a functional equivalent can become more of an intepretation than a translation at the far end of the spectrum. On the other end, a strict formal equivalent can be so literal that the actual meaning of the text may be misunderstood. That said, they are all very good. That's why the best Bible to buy is the one you will read.
You will have to forgive me for giving you information that you are already aware of. I thought your question was sincere and I was simply offering information that I thought might be helpful. As to what the "perfect" translation might be from the "perfect text" would be is a tough question, especially since the Apostles quoted from both the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. There were variant readings of some passages in these two texts and the Aposltes often quoted from the Septuagint even when it was at variance with the Masoretic text.
....nor is there any place in the NT where anyone was baptized with someone saying, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus....". My official incredibly complex theological position on the matter is, I don't think it matters what one says when one is baptized.
It would be hard to find anyone who preaches against rare or medium rare steaks. Well, maybe I'll preach against rare steaks because thought of a bloody steak is disgusting. Yebshick.....I just shivered at the thought. But do you really think that's what is intended with that command...that we can't eat rare or medium rare steaks?
Do you have any other interpretational ideas for that scripture?
How does one explain that away so that their verison of Christianity stays valid in their own eyes?
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 04-10-2010 at 01:58 PM.
Reason: Our Christianity is VALID by the GRACE of God and only by His GRACE. I'm trying to address human religiosity.
So did Paul give the jailer an incomplete gospel message?
Did God purposely let something mandatory be left out of the Bible in several instances, when it comes to soul salvation?
Did God move Phillip away from a new convert before he was fully converted, leaving the Ethiopian to be half-baked and thus wholly lost?
In Acts 3 when Peter preached, "Repent and be converted" was he haphazzardly giving a condensed version of the saving Gospel, thinking that everyone else was going to know where to pick up?
"Believe in your heart... and confess with your mouth.... and you shall be saved...." Where does the physical act of baptism come into play in the "working" of salvation?
Acts 2:39 says that, "... the PROMISE is unto you and your children and all those afar off...."
It does not say that this COMMAND is for you and your children and all....
Abraham was declared righteous, not after he attained the Promise, but when in faith he obeyed God in faith, pursuing God's PROMISE for him.
Is Abraham an example for us?
And while we are talking about doing things exactly like they did in the book of Acts, when was the last time an Apostolic preacher passionately expressed the Biblical mandate for Christians to avoid rare and medium rare steaks???
It's IMPOSSIBLE to preach that one MUST speak in tongues to confirm salvation or in order to attain salvation without ADDING TO THE BIBLE.
The guy who tampered with Matthew 28:19 no doubt had good intentions too.
I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.
I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.
Quote:
In my opinion, Acts 2:38 presents three separate experiences:
salvation,
water baptism,
Spirit baptism
Those who believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are saved or born again. Water baptism is important but not salvational.
The Holy Ghost Baptism is important but not salvational.
From the first century until today in 2010, anyone who puts their faith in Jesus is born again and is in "The Church" whether they ever get baptized in water or not and whether they ever get baptized in the Spirit or not. And that is how Jesus Christ has had a Church for the past 2000 years.
I see...I think. You are talking about the KJV only people. Funny thing, when I was young I think most protestants were KJV only people. The Revised Standard took a terrible beating because it was the first translation to update language and correct some "errors" and this was seen as an attack of "the Word of God" rather than updating. Frankly, I still find the old Revised Standard a very good translation. Now the NASB was next, and in seemed to get a much better footing with protestants, at least for a little while. Then it came under attack. The NIV has come under attack. The NLT and so on and so forth. When people ask me, "What do you think would be the best translation for me to buy?" my answer is always the same. Go to a Christian bookstore, sit down, read the same passages from as many different translations as you can. And when you are done comparing the translations the one which you are most likely to read is the one you should buy. What's more is that I do not recommend the KJV (althought the New KJV is nice) to most people because archaic English can be easily misunderstood.
I think there are some criticisms that can be legitimate. For example, a functional equivalent can become more of an intepretation than a translation at the far end of the spectrum. On the other end, a strict formal equivalent can be so literal that the actual meaning of the text may be misunderstood. That said, they are all very good. That's why the best Bible to buy is the one you will read.
You will have to forgive me for giving you information that you are already aware of. I thought your question was sincere and I was simply offering information that I thought might be helpful. As to what the "perfect" translation might be from the "perfect text" would be is a tough question, especially since the Apostles quoted from both the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. There were variant readings of some passages in these two texts and the Aposltes often quoted from the Septuagint even when it was at variance with the Masoretic text.
TheLayman
First, I'm sorry for saying, "You're missing my point" that bluntly. That was rude.
Second, I'm a little different when people ask me what bible to buy. I say, "Get a New Living Translation or you're going to hell." I say it like it is.
Third, I guess what you're saying is, there are perfect manuscripts but not necessarily perfect translations? Or something in that neighborhood?
Fourth, I was kidding about the NLT....well, sorta.
Last, I actually DO consider the possibility that the bible contains.....uhhhh.....inaccuracies. But I'm not terribly concerned with the translators playing games. I consider the possibility that certain writers may have (and I'm gonna get shot for this), well, missed a detail or two, or added a detail or two. I probably better leave it at that or the "get off this forum" PM's will start arriving!
That last sentence is just as valid as my other questions.
Not only does the Bible not record any physical water baptisms using the "titles", but extra-biblical history also shows that the earliest Christians did not use the Trinitarian formula for water baptism.
Not only that, you would be hard-pressed to find a Trinitarian preacher who preaches the BIBLICAL COMMAND for the earliest Christians to abstain from rare and medium rare steaks.
Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.
Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator.
Jermyn, are you referring to Acts 15:29? If so, are you supposing that abstaining from blood actually means abstaining from the raw blood you might find in a rare steak (even though meat is drained of blood as part of the processing, there will be small amounts left)? So, would it be OK to each cooked blood, as you would find in blood sausage, e.g.? How about boiled blood? How much cooking does God require?
I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.
I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.
It's a command to not sin. Christians should not sin, should avoid sin, should avoid the appearance of sin. "Unrepented" of sin can keep keep a soul from salvation.
But do you stop sinning so that you can come to Christ?
Or do you come to Christ so that He can empower you to stop sinning?
Water baptism can be seen the same way. YES! Water baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ is a COMMAND, but it is not explained in the Bible by Peter to be performed in a way to attain salvation.
According to Peter, water baptism is performed to show your good conscience, your converted heart.
The same Apostle who preached Acts 2:38 explained the role of water baptism. The act doesn't save us and that is what Peter said.
The Apostle Paul baptized folks in the Bible, in the Name of Jesus, as this was the proper way, ordained by Christ Himself, that we should "fulfil all righteousness."
Everywhere anyone was baptized in the Bible, they BELIEVED the Gospel first and then to demonstrate their faith in Jesus Christ, their change of heart, they were baptized with the NAME of Jesus spoken over them.
Notice the language that our God and Savior used. Paraphrased, "I must be baptized to fulfill all righteousness."
Notice He didn't say to make me righteous or to give me full righteousness.
If that was the role of baptism, would Jesus needed to be baptized?
Any "sincere" Christian believer who refuses water baptism may not have had the Gospel and the role of baptism presented to them clearly. Or maybe, just maybe, their hearts may not be truly converted in FAITH to live out their lives for Jesus Christ.
I would NEVER tell someone that baptism is optional. The Bible does not present its COMMANDS as options like a Cosmic Christian Combo Meal.
However, the way we present the commands of the Bible can change the spirit of the law if we are not careful.
The Gospel of Liberty, presented the wrong way, can quickly become a man-ordained gospel of human performance and bondage.
As for the doctrine of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, it is settled, Biblically speaking, that to present the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ in a way that leads a person to believe that they must speak in tongues to be saved is to add to the Bible.
Besides, the Holy Spirit infilling will come to those with saving faith in Jesus Christ, who seek Him.
When you go to the store to buy a shoe, do you check out the tongue of the shoe?
But when you leave with your new shoes, the tongue is there, right?
(Ok Timmy, leaving out sandals and some boots....)
You run the danger of presenting a human performance-based Gospel when you present the Gospel with the extra-biblical stipulation that you must speak in tongues before you are saved.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 04-10-2010 at 01:56 PM.
Jermyn, are you referring to Acts 15:29? If so, are you supposing that abstaining from blood actually means abstaining from the raw blood you might find in a rare steak (even though meat is drained of blood as part of the processing, there will be small amounts left)? So, would it be OK to each cooked blood, as you would find in blood sausage, e.g.? How about boiled blood? How much cooking does God require?
It is a BIBLICAL NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND FOR NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO DO THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES DID IT THAT THEY SHOULD ONLY EAT KOSHER MEATS.
So even if we got around the "blood" reference, what about the "strangled" reference?
My point is, like I said:
"Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.
Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator."
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
It is a BIBLICAL NEW TESTAMENT COMMAND FOR NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO DO THINGS EXACTLY LIKE THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES DID IT THAT THEY SHOULD ONLY EAT KOSHER MEATS.
So even if we got around the "blood" reference, what about the "strangled" reference?
My point is, like I said:
"Face it, we're all guilty, all right and all wrong all at the same time.
Yet, we have a God and Savior who died a criminal's death of the cruelest kind just so that we can have the chance to see through a dark glass to catch a glimpse of the love of our Creator."
Hey, I'm not trying to get around it. I'm just trying to help you know exactly how to obey it!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I find it rather incredulous that some would overlook the fact that the events Jesus spoke about would take place (Luke 24) actually were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). I also find it incredulous that we think that Peter, standing with the other eleven Apostles, Jesus' mother and his brethren, and think that it is even necessary to line out Acts 2:38 in every event in Acts. The idea has been expressed, we understand it. When we study the whole, we know what is all entailed in "Believe on HIM". That's a no brainer, IMO.
I read this by a poster. If this is where some want to take the salvation message, I'm not going there. I don't see this in the scriptures, at all.
I held your view for a long time. Your response helps eliminate discussion of the evidence (take the broadest of all potential definitions, and apply that to all passages). There is great error here. One of those great errors is actually believing that the Apostle in 95% of the time when he spoke about justification, righteousness, salvation, etc... he forgot the HUGE pieces that dominate our 3-stepper language today is somewhat "incredulous" itself.
Paul never wrote a letter expecting them to "study all other letters" to understand what he was saying. There is benefit, of course, to context in whole, be it the entire verse, entire chapter, entire letter/book or entire Bible for that matter! But assuming a writer's words are incomplete until they've been compared with all other words is a fallacy. We don't just assign the broadest meaning on all terms, especially when it's quite possible our "broadest meaning" is potentially incorrectly understood, and better understood in light of the majority text on that subject. The dangers could be some of which you would even agree (if I had time to give specific examples).
No one disagrees with Peter. Plenty disagree with the implications of what you claim Peter is saying. Peter was not giving a systematic theology, didactic teaching or a step-by-step menu of salvation. He was telling people what to do, which is what all Christian churches do today. Turn to God (repent), be baptized and you will receive the Spirit.
Linear Mode
