|
|
USER COMMENTS BY DISCERNING BELIEVER |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 10 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
1/10/08 9:10 AM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Michael Hranek wrote: derek Did you mean to say salvation precedes baptism? Acts 10:44-48 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. btw Somehow I just do not believe that the Holy Ghost fell upon any infants present to where they spoke in tongues and I do not believe Peter commanded any infants there to be baptized, just believers. Michael, Derek had it right. wrote: and Scripture is clear that Baptism procedes salvation. Baptism PROCEEDS (comes after) salvation. You are right too, salvation PRECEEDS (comes before) baptism. At least that is what the instances given from scripture would have us to believe. |
|
|
1/9/08 8:44 AM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
derek wrote: jago The amount of water is important because of the symbolism attached. In the Old Testament, in the simplest form, all of the sacrifices were symbolic of the coming sacrifice; but they were to be strictly followed. Baptism is symbolic of the death, BURIAL, and ressurection of that new believer. When we are buried, they don't sprinkle dirt on a dead body to bury it; they drop it in a hole and push all of the dirt back in. They are immersed (meaning there is dirt above them, under them, and all around them) in the grave. Really, the same symbolism is in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is above us, under us, all around us - immersed. Derek, The only problem is that we tend to think of the method of burial, dropping in a hole and covered with dirt in terms of modern Western culture. This wasn't the practice in bible times. |
|
|
1/8/08 11:35 AM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
JD wrote: There is NO covenant of grace in the Holy Scriptures. So then you reject the dispensation of grace.What do you call an unconditional covenant? God made an unconditional covenant with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15. The covenant God made Abraham was an unconditional covenant pertaining to the seed by which the coming Messiah would proceed. JD wrote: No one hads said Abraham was a Jew. Where did you get that out of the blue? You plainly said the God made no covenants with the Gentiles. Was not Abraham a Gentile?JD wrote: Satan is a master of misinformation and I believe your words are his! Very Confused: You are rejecting my argument feom the passages I am dealing with. At least deal with those passages and tell me how I am misrepresnting them. Then we will deal with your argument. Are you too confused to know how to debate? I am out for the day! Just merely pointing out the false teaching of dispensationalism and their two ways of salvation. Scofield himself wrote on page 1115 of the Scofield Reference Bible that "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation"Talk about misinformation. |
|
|
1/7/08 5:05 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Walt,Thanks for the link. I saved it to read the entire discourse. I did take particular note of the text, Acts 10:47. In context, it gives us a clear picture of who the subjects for baptism were. (Act 10:44-48) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell ***on all them which heard the word. ***45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, *** which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? *** 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Who were "these" referring to in verse 47? They were the ones who heard the word, believed the word and received the Holy Ghost. Wouldn't that constitute believer's baptism. |
|
|
1/7/08 4:35 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
R. K. Borill wrote: Terry, I will use you as a means to respond to others opposed to sprinkling as the proper mode of baptism. "Immersion" is found no where in scripture although they will argue that the word "baptizo" means to immerse from the Greek. If that were the case why do the translators use a transliterated word rather than "immerse". On the other hand the word "sprinkle" or "pour" are used through out the OT and NT. For example: Then in the same vain, why didn't the translators use "pour" or "sprinkle", when they ran into "baptizo". They do have Greek equivilents. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers to use "baptizo" for a reason instead of the Greek words for "poured - κατεχεεν" or "sprinkled - ερραντισεν". |
|
|
1/7/08 2:43 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
jago wrote: DB using Rom 6: 1-6 raises the question of why we don't use dirt to symbolize being buried. Jesus was however not put into a grave as we know it. He was placed in a cave wrapped in cloth. How does this show full immersion under water? Don't ask me, you are the one who teaches that pouring or sprinkling symbolizes being buried. Because whenever Jesus was baptized water was used. Whenever we see John the Baptist baptizing, water was in a river. When we saw the Ethiopian eunuch baptized, water was used. Perhaps because the bible says so. As far as a grave vs. cave is concerned, I thought I made that distinction clear, I used the terms tomb and selpulchur as referenced in bible times. I made the point of saying that the sepulchur was covered with a large rock or stone. "Immersion is never proved in Scripture. Because the quantity of water is never stipulated anywhere." Hmm. let's see, John was baptizing in a river. Ethiopian eunuch, both went down into the water. There must have been plenty of room for two people. John 3:23 "..much water" |
|
|
1/7/08 1:18 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Considering the following text, how can anyone possibly infer from other and more obsure passages that the proper mode of baptism is sprinkling or pouring when clearer passages are available for interpretation.(Rom 6:1-6) "1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Considering that we who have been baptized into Christ are dead TO sin, buried with him and raised to walk a new life. When one is buried, they are laid to rest, not standing up. They were completely wrapped up and the tomb was covered, in ancient times with a stone in the side or opening of the selpuchur. How can pouring or sprinkling picture this? out of room. |
|
|
1/4/08 9:05 AM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Kendall wrote: Discerning BelieverMy apologies for not coming back to you yesterday DB, I had computer problems. However here is my attempt. “IT” can refer to an unspecified or implied antecedent or to a previous or understood CLAUSE, phrase etc. “Antecedent” in grammar can be a word or phrase to which the pronoun refers. The writers of the KJV in using “it” clearly applied this rule because they identified the CLAUSE as the description of “gift” not just the grace as some may argue. What do you think? So basically it boils down to 3 things.It [grace] is the gift of God. It [faith] is the gift of God. It [salvation] is the gift of God. The gift is salvation (implied) by grace (in contrast to works) through faith (the channel by which it is received). Salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23) not of works. The main focus of the passage deals with salvation, not faith. Faith is clearly a fruit of the Spirit and generated through the operation of the Holy Spirit not by the natural man. Some people go to seed in implying something that isn't the main focus of the passage. Both Barnes and the Pulpit Commentaries agree that the gift is salvation, Calvin and Gill see otherwise. |
|
|
1/3/08 5:46 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
R. K. Borill wrote: It can if the concept is understood from the context. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Then the question would be, is the concept salvation itself being THE gift of God (re: Rom. 6:23) or is it talking about faith being THE gift of God. |
|
|
1/3/08 4:27 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
R. K. Borill wrote: Now, I can say with confidence that here you are wrong. Eph. 2:8-9 declares that faith is a gift as follows: "For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it {faith} is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast." RK, just out of curiosity, how can a neuter pronoun [it] refer back to a feminine antecedent [faith]? |
|
|
1/3/08 1:08 PM |
Discerning Believer | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Bible verse wrote: Tell, me am I the only one who can see the exchange in 2 Cor 5.21? Christ made (accounted) sin for us, and we made (accounted) the righteousness of God in him .. it was our sin that was imputed to him, and therefore it must be his righteousness that is imputed to us!! He is our righteousness, not any exercise of faith on our part. Faith merely rests on that righteousness which belongs to another. You are not the only one, I see the exchange of imputation as well. But we are the ones being called cults. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|