While I am in agreement with you in many ways you do raise some serious questions.
Why do people who are "in the light" concerning Jesus name baptism have no light at all when it comes to shirt sleeves or men's facial hair? Shouldn't the same light that reveals Jesus name also reveal just how silly many of our extra-biblical doctrines are?
Interesting point....
There are two lights. One is the divine light that leads us into all truth should we so choose to follow that light...as He promised to do. There is another light, actually two others, one of which is purely natural. Too often it is so easy to get those two cofused.
Natural light comes from natural precepts that are handed to us that are formed from natural concepts. Here are the dangers involved. If I were to live like strict Amish that would not own an auto or farm with the use of power equipment such as a tractor, having convictions that modern technology that evolved from the Industrial Revolution is wrong is walking in a natural light from natural concepts. Nevertheless, there is nothing inheriently wrong with walking in natural light until it begins to prevent, hinder or perfert the Spiritual light. Very often it can be said today as Jesus said so long ago, "The traditions of your Elders have made the Word of God to none affect." When this happens, then it is fundamentally wrong. But, it does not neccessarily have to happen, even though it does when we confuse natual light for Spiritual.
Interesting series of exchanges.I have not read everything so I may have missed it. If I did, sorry, here it is again:
If one is willing to read Acts chapter 2 line by line, word by word, he/she will discover that in Acts 2:37 the people were not asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were asking, "Being saved, now what do we do?"
Doctrine hits scriptural reality.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 12-20-2007 at 10:01 AM.
Reason: Make the statement(s) clearer.
Interesting series of exchanges.I have not read everything so I may have missed it. If I did, sorry, here it is again:
If one is willing to read Acts chapter 2 line by line, word by word, he/she will discover that in Acts 2:37 the people were not asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were asking, "Being saved, now what do we do?"
Doctrine hits scriptural reality.
Gloooooorrrrrrrrry!!! Master B, you've unleashed another nugget.
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Interesting series of exchanges.I have not read everything so I may have missed it. If I did, sorry, here it is again:
If one is willing to read Acts chapter 2 line by line, word by word, he/she will discover that in Acts 2:37 the people were not asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were asking, "Being saved, now what do we do?"
Doctrine hits scriptural reality.
If this is true then Peter's response makes no sense whatsoever. This is what they should have said instead of what's actually written:
Their hearts were pricked and they said "Glory, we're saved! Now what must we do?" And Peter said, " And now that you're saved and your sins are remitted by faith in Christ, we must bury you in the likeness of Christ's death by water baptism and you can receive a second blessing of being baptized in Holy Spirit"
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Interesting series of exchanges.I have not read everything so I may have missed it. If I did, sorry, here it is again:
If one is willing to read Acts chapter 2 line by line, word by word, he/she will discover that in Acts 2:37 the people were not asking, "What shall we do to be saved?" They were asking, "Being saved, now what do we do?"
Doctrine hits scriptural reality.
I've read it line by line and word by word more times than I can count, and sorry. I just don't see that.
My pots not stirred and I ain't mad at nobody, but that just isn't there and that is a view point I will just not accept myself, so for me there isn't any point in discussing it other than to make what I see known. Call me a three-stepper if you want.
If this is true then Peter's response makes no sense whatsoever. This is what they should have said instead of what's actually written:
Their hearts were pricked and they said "Glory, we're saved! Now what must we do?" And Peter said, " And now that you're saved and your sins are remitted by faith in Christ, we must bury you in the likeness of Christ's death by water baptism and you can receive a second blessing of being baptized in Holy Spirit"
Besides, in the afore quoted "line-by-line word-by-word theory, they had not yet repented when they asked "Men and Brethren, what shall we do?" Had they done so why would Peter have needed to be redundant?
Are they saved even before repentance? I thought that violated even one-stepper theology.
If this is true then Peter's response makes no sense whatsoever. This is what they should have said instead of what's actually written:
Their hearts were pricked and they said "Glory, we're saved! Now what must we do?" And Peter said, " And now that you're saved and your sins are remitted by faith in Christ, we must bury you in the likeness of Christ's death by water baptism and you can receive a second blessing of being baptized in Holy Spirit"
This is called scriptural interpretation by doctrine. A practice which is almost always guaranteed to result in biblical error. What one must do is set aside church dogma when it conflicts with the word of God, and reexamine that area(s) which are in conflict. It is not rituals that save, but faith in Christ Jesus. It was by faith in the promised Messiah that folks were saved in the Old Testament, not by the Law, by sacrifices, or other processes, observances or other formulas.
No doctrine may stand-alone and be called “true doctrine”. All true doctrine must be united, combined, and unified, supporting and being supported by all other “true doctrine”. Any “stand-alone” doctrine is, by definition, a false doctrine.
Where the scriptures make no sense, it is not a problem with the scriptures but with the reader. Such a problem may also have its root in the translation being used, and thereby pointing the reader to an inappropriate interpretation and/or application.
It takes a little getting use to, but it really does help to take some time out every once in a while and reexamine what it is we think we know and understand. The truth never needs defending or justifying, only doctrines of men. Actually, truth invites examination.
May your studies prove fruitful.
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
This is called scriptural interpretation by doctrine. A practice which is almost always guaranteed to result in biblical error. What one must do is set aside church dogma when it conflicts with the word of God, and reexamine that area(s) which are in conflict. It is not rituals that save, but faith in Christ Jesus. It was by faith in the promised Messiah that folks were saved in the Old Testament, not by the Law, by sacrifices, or other processes, observances or other formulas.
No doctrine may stand-alone and be called “true doctrine”. All true doctrine must be united, combined, and unified, supporting and being supported by all other “true doctrine”. Any “stand-alone” doctrine is, by definition, a false doctrine.
Where the scriptures make no sense, it is not a problem with the scriptures but with the reader. Such a problem may also have its root in the translation being used, and thereby pointing the reader to an inappropriate interpretation and/or application.
It takes a little getting use to, but it really does help to take some time out every once in a while and reexamine what it is we think we know and understand. The truth never needs defending or justifying, only doctrines of men. Actually, truth invites examination.
May your studies prove fruitful.
Excellent points, Rabbi.
One big issue ... the 3 step crowd has is that somehow many of them think the command to "REPENT" is a one time partial salvational event ... accompanied by melancholy altar call music and a confessional prayer mixed w/ mucous and tears.
Peter told them to "turn to God" ... a message that is for all believers ... good and necessary on the first encounter w/ the Word as it is throughout our relationship
with God.
Telling them to turn to God by identifying w/ the salvational work of the Lamb, Jesus Christ, through baptism ... is what he was saying.
And if Acts 2:38 was the only scripture, then I suppose we could call it "Stand Alone". But we in addition have Phillip in Samaria, Cornelius and Peter, Paul and the disciples at Ephesus, all in the Only book that shows how it was done.
Yeah, it is good to examine. But at some point one must reach a point of understanding that "Thsi is what it is".
Too much examination and people start seeing things that aren't there, second guessing themselves, and listening to their interpretations rather than the witness and confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
I didn't get the revelation of Oneness and Jesus name from the UPC. I got it from the Word of God. That is why I won't be moved from it. I have been criticized for my intolerance to this viewpoint on the GNC and am a-ok with that.
And I also understand that you guys won't be moved either. Thus I gracefully bow out of this discussion.
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
