Baptism...

[RyanL]

RyanL:

You never answered, BTW, whether or not your church has Bishops…and if not, why not follow 1 Tim 3? It should apply…

Oops, sorry, that was supposed to be a question for linus on this thread. I’m getting confused by the unbelieveably different interpretations that can come from Sola Scriptura. I really wish they would come up with an Evangelical Catechism or a Quaker Catechism; it would make things *much *easier.

If you want, however, you could answer this as well…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RobNY]

TheOpenTheist:

The phrase “law of love” is not in the Bible. Anyways, we are not under any law. Those who are under the law are guilty before God. And those in the Body of Christ are not guilty, but accepted (Eph 1:6) and justified (Rom 5:1).

Ah, how easily I go back on my word. The phrase “law of love” is shorthand for love your God with your whole… and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s what the law hangs on.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
​

you said

Well, if you insist contrary to what Paul wrote, that we are under one or more laws then I can’t go against Paul’s gospel on that basis. However, if you do recognize that those of us in the Body are not under law, then that explanation could make sense.

I know we aren’t under the Mosaic Law, isn’t this what he’s usually referring to? Or do you interpret this to mean all “law” in the vaugest sense? Actually, that would be an interesting term to define, “law” as Paul uses it.
​

Sadly though, you lack the abundance of evidence that I include within my posts.

To be honest, I’m interested in another thing: are there any early interpreters of the Bible that interpreted as you do with two different gospels?

You may have argued in a “yes it is, no it isn’t” mode, but I clearly have not. For example, I gave evidence based upon Greek syntax WHY Gal 2:7-8 ought to be translated as “gospel of” instead of the inaccurate “gospel to” or "gospel for. All you did was reference a translation that happened to agree with you, but is still wrong according to the normative rules of translating the Greek text.

You can argue on greek syntax until the cows go home, I apologize for being a seventeen year old with no access to greek classes. I can’t go back to the source materials because it wouldn’t make a whit of sense to me. I’d love to address your argument, really, but first I’d have to familiarize myself with the alphabet, then I’d have to start hobbling about half-blind in a language I’m not familiar with. Give me ten years to get back to you, eh? This is one of my longer term goals. I’m not ignoring your argument because I wish not to argue, I’m leaving it be because it’s simply out of my league.

 

[pnewton]

TheOpenTheist:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Within this truth, we in the Body of Christ specificly benefit from giving preference to that Scripture addressed specifcly to us. All Scripture is for us, but not all Scripture is to us.

New can of worms. What is “all scripture”? In the context given, if Timothy was taught it in his childhood, then it can not be the New Testament, at least not a significant portion of it. In fact, it would seem to preclude the very parts you give pre-eminence to.

Thank goodness we have the Catholic Church to provide the true canon of scripture and lead us in sound doctrine.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Alright everyone!!! Today is THE DAY. I am about to head off to my baptism so I RESPECTFULLY ask that all ‘debate’ and/or arguments on this thread cease at least for today and everyone celebrate with me on this big day. I thank you all for your prayers and support and will let you know how it went!

 

[dljl]

You have my prayers.

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

Anti-semitism
The (name removed by moderator)ut from the church fathers can be helpful at times. But, the church fathers are not the best guides when it comes to interpreting Scripture in my experience.

Wow! So your interpretation of Scripture is more accurate than the Church Fathers. I’m speechless!

 

[Mickey]

TheOpenTheist:

My interpretation of Gal 2:7-8 is accurate and in agreement with the Greek text. My interpretation takes into account the context of the entire epistle along with the context of the plot and plot twists found in the New Testament.

Your interpretation is at odds with just about every Christian of the past 2000 years.

This is the interpretation from the Orthodox study Bible for Gal 2:7-8

Peter and Paul were responsible to reach one segment of the population in the central part of the Roman Empire: Peter the circumcised (Jews), Paul the uncircumcised (Gentiles). The others of the twelve also did evangelistic work, as did the Seventy. (Luke 10)

One God gave one gospel through two apostles, to two different ethnic groups.

 

[Mickey]

threadkiller:

Paul rejects baptism? I don’t think so. It’s more like you reject scripture. 1 Cor 1.17 is hyperbole.

TheOpenTheist:

You are telling me that Paul’s statement that “Christ did NOT send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” is hyperbole?? What in the world!?!? If you know what hyperbole is, then there is no way you could refer to that statement of Paul’s as hyperbole.

The Orthodox Study Bible interprets 1 Cor 1:15-17 as follows:

Paul’s denial does not degrade baptism; he is simply emphasizing that baptizing is not his primary role. As an Apostle, Paul’s primary job is to preach the gospel, teaching those seeking God to be baptized. The one who performs a baptism is God’s instrument; The convert’s loyalty must be to God alone.

 

[CARose]

Singingbeauty,

I’m sorry I missed on wishing you well sooner, I haven’t logged in for a few days. I hope your baptism went well!

I’m so happy for you!

Welcome to the Church, which is the Body of Christ. May you receive with an open heart all the gifts which the Holy Spirit has bestowed upon you through you most wonderful gift of Baptism. You have been cleansed from the oppression of Original Sin and have been washed clean of that sin which you have to this point committed in your life. You are a new creature in Christ.

Congratulations! God Bless.

Now, come back and tell us all the wonderful details. Did they use the Trinitarian form (I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit)? Were there many others there, also being baptized? Did you have any family members there to experience your joy?

Hope it went well!

CARose

 

[Singinbeauty]

Well, it happened! I was baptized on October 23, 2005! I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit after being a christian for about 20yrs. I feel really good about this and am excited to see what it will do in my life. There were about 5 others getting baptized that day. We did it outside. It wasn’t raining but it was gray. I loved it and really feel like God has led me up to this point and is pleased with me. I really feel like He is blessing me every day! Thank you all for your prayers!!!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Congratulations to SinginBeauty, and since this thread has now served it’s stated purpose…it is now closed.