The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[Damian]

Damian, if you are not a Oneness Pentecostal or a Church of Christ or maybe a Catholic, it is silly of you to say baptism is necessary for salvation. What are you?

I did not say that baptism was necessary for salvation, Jesus did in Mark 16:15,16. And I am a Christian.

 

[godrulz]

Damian, if you are not a Oneness Pentecostal or a Church of Christ or maybe a Catholic, it is silly of you to say baptism is necessary for salvation. What are you?

Baptism is evidence of faith, not the condition of faith. Circumcision did not save anyone either, but it was commanded and evidenced heart faith to men, not God who knows the heart.

 

[godrulz]

I did not say that baptism was necessary for salvation, Jesus did in Mark 16:15,16. And I am a Christian.

You cannot be a Christian and reject the Deity of Christ (not your demi-god divinity ideas). Jesus did not say baptism was necessary in Jn. 3:16, 36. You need to revisit your wrong understanding of Mk. 16. There are a few other verses used for baptismal regeneration, but they are better interpreted differently and consistently with the rest of Scripture that does not make it a condition for eternal life.

 

[Damian]

You cannot be a Christian and reject the Deity of Christ (not your demi-god divinity ideas). Jesus did not say baptism was necessary in Jn. 3:16, 36. You need to revisit your wrong understanding of Mk. 16. There are a few other verses used for baptismal regeneration, but they are better interpreted differently and consistently with the rest of Scripture that does not make it a condition for eternal life.

I do believe in the divinity of Christ. And Jesus may not have said baptism in John 3:16, 36 but he did in Mark 16:15,16. And contrary to your belief, I am able to understand the meaning of the verse which apparently you are not.

 

[godrulz]

I do believe in the divinity of Christ. And Jesus may not have said baptism in John 3:16, 36 but he did in Mark 16:15,16. And contrary to your belief, I am able to understand the meaning of the verse which apparently you are not.

Your understanding of 'divinity' is not the historical, biblical, orthodox understanding of the Deity of Christ. You have a counterfeit Christ (2 Cor. 11:4) since you reject a triune understanding of God (not your version, but the biblical version).

Test: Is Jesus Christ Almighty God, the uncreated Creator? Is He co-equal, co-essential, and co-existent with the Father and Holy Spirit as the one and only true God? Is He God Almighty in the flesh, the God-Man, one person with two natures (fully God and fully man)?

 

[Damian]

Your understanding of 'divinity' is not the historical, biblical, orthodox understanding of the Deity of Christ. You have a counterfeit Christ (2 Cor. 11:4) since you reject a triune understanding of God (not your version, but the biblical version).

You identify yourself as a Protestant Christian. This implies that you identify with a denomination which has rebelled against the teaching of the historical and orthodox Church. You allow yourself the liberty of rejecting historical and traditional Christianity; I trust that you will allow me the same liberty.

Test: Is Jesus Christ Almighty God, the uncreated Creator? Is He co-equal, co-essential, and co-existent with the Father and Holy Spirit as the one and only true God? Is He God Almighty in the flesh, the God-Man, one person with two natures (fully God and fully man)?

Christ has two natures? I thought you said that the flesh was metaphorical, not literal. Right?

I have already stated that my Christianity is based on the Course. The Course teaches that only the Trinity is real. Why do you keep saying that I reject the Trinity? I don't. I would argue that I am the only one on this forum who truly believes in the Holy Trinity.

 

[lightninboy]

The Course is a new one to me.
Could you post a link to it?
Is it kind of Greek Orthodox?

 

[godrulz]

You identify yourself as a Protestant Christian. This implies that you identify with a denomination which has rebelled against the teaching of the historical and orthodox Church. You allow yourself the liberty of rejecting historical and traditional Christianity; I trust that you will allow me the same liberty.

Christ has two natures? I thought you said that the flesh was metaphorical, not literal. Right?

I have already stated that my Christianity is based on the Course. The Course teaches that only the Trinity is real. Why do you keep saying that I reject the Trinity? I don't. I would argue that I am the only one on this forum who truly believes in the Holy Trinity.

Orthodox means straight or right rule doctrinally. Do not confuse it with the Greek or Russian Orthodox denomination that divided with Roman Catholicism.

I was talking about BIBLICAL, historical Christianity (very early church), not the traditions of men.

The WORD was God and BECAME flesh. As I said before, flesh can mean the physical body or it can be used as a metaphor for sin. In reference to Christology, it refers to His HUMAN vs divine nature. In reference to the believer, it can mean the physical body or as a metaphor for sin and bodily lusts. Context is the key (since the same Greek word is used in both cases).

Define for us your idea of the Trinity. JWs believe in the Father, Son, holy spirit (sic) and One God, yet they reject vehemently the normative understanding of Trinity as espoused by Catholics and Protestants.

Answer my questions about Christ and we will likely see that you have a counterfeit trinity. (even Mormons and Hindus have a trinity concept, but it is diametrically opposed to the biblical, Christian understanding). Trust the Bible, not ACIM, and you will be light years ahead in your understanding.

 

[godrulz]

The Course is a new one to me.
Could you post a link to it?
Is it kind of Greek Orthodox?

A Course in Miracles:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c08.html

http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/newage/nindex.html

(scroll down).

ACIM is a New Age philosophy started by a former Jewish atheist/psychologist. It was based on her demonic channeling of a false Christ. It is extra/contrabiblical.

The Greek Orthodox Church has essential biblical truth, even though many of its adherents are not 'born again'.

 

[lightninboy]

Here is a Theology Online thread that kind of pertains to this thread: Gospel to the circumcision.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28273&highlight=aztek

 

[Damian]

Orthodox means straight or right rule doctrinally. Do not confuse it with the Greek or Russian Orthodox denomination that divided with Roman Catholicism.

I was talking about BIBLICAL, historical Christianity (very early church), not the traditions of men.

You have already went on record saying that tradition must be taken into account when interpreting the Scriptures.

The WORD was God and BECAME flesh. As I said before, flesh can mean the physical body or it can be used as a metaphor for sin. In reference to Christology, it refers to His HUMAN vs divine nature. In reference to the believer, it can mean the physical body or as a metaphor for sin and bodily lusts. Context is the key (since the same Greek word is used in both cases).

Define for us your idea of the Trinity. JWs believe in the Father, Son, holy spirit (sic) and One God, yet they reject vehemently the normative understanding of Trinity as espoused by Catholics and Protestants.

Catholics? You're forming an alliance with Catholicism. This is a new one.

Answer my questions about Christ and we will likely see that you have a counterfeit trinity. (even Mormons and Hindus have a trinity concept, but it is diametrically opposed to the biblical, Christian understanding). Trust the Bible, not ACIM, and you will be light years ahead in your understanding.

I have already answered your questions concerning the Trinity; I see no reason to repeat myself.

 

[godrulz]

You have already went on record saying that tradition must be taken into account when interpreting the Scriptures.



Catholics? You're forming an alliance with Catholicism. This is a new one.



I have already answered your questions concerning the Trinity; I see no reason to repeat myself.

I am not Catholic, so I do not give tradition authority compared to the Word of God properly translated and interpreted. Even the early Church Fathers did not agree on everything, so I would take any tradition with a grain of salt. The NT does not negate godly tradition, just the traditions of men that are faulty.

Catholics are not wrong about everything. Their basic Christology is sound. This does not mean I condone many other things held by Catholics. Agreeing that Jesus is God, risen from the dead, does not make me Roman Catholic. I reject papal authority, views on Mary, Mass, etc.

I cannot remember your views on Trinity. Any idea where they are? If someone asks me, I refresh their memory. If I remember correctly, we use the term in totally different ways.

 

[Damian]

I cannot remember your views on Trinity. Any idea where they are? If someone asks me, I refresh their memory. If I remember correctly, we use the term in totally different ways.

You did not hesitate to condemn ACIM as demonic. And now you are asking to refresh your memory?

 

[godrulz]

You did not hesitate to condemn ACIM as demonic. And now you are asking to refresh your memory?

My general memory is good. I know that ACIM, based on what you quote and my research, is off base. The claim was that it was channeled by an entity that was supposedly Jesus. Based on its contradiction to the older revelation of the teachings of Jesus, it is demonic. Channeling is not a biblical thing, but is condemned as the kingdom of darkness. You need discernement, dude. I do not remember the exact teachings on the Trinity from your course. A generic quote does not deal with the semantical barrier.

 

[lightninboy]

While you guys are quarreling here, use your clout and get Clete and Jerry Shugart back here. I'm so hard up for opposition, I had to go over to christianforums.com.

 

[Damian]

My general memory is good. I know that ACIM, based on what you quote and my research, is off base. The claim was that it was channeled by an entity that was supposedly Jesus. Based on its contradiction to the older revelation of the teachings of Jesus, it is demonic. Channeling is not a biblical thing, but is condemned as the kingdom of darkness. You need discernement, dude. I do not remember the exact teachings on the Trinity from your course. A generic quote does not deal with the semantical barrier.

What do you know about quotes? You have failed to realize that spiritual truth is verbally expressed in aphorisms - the verbal equivalent of mathematical equations.

 

[scpaintballer01]

Baptism is evidence of faith, not the condition of faith. Circumcision did not save anyone either, but it was commanded and evidenced heart faith to men, not God who knows the heart.

I agree with this 110% because what is baptism as we know it today? A ceremony that shows to others that an individual believes in the faith and has excepted God. I have a problem though with the youth who believe: "I was baptised as a baby, so im straight with all that God and heaven crap." This is not to say that I dont support the baptisim of an infant, but lets (hypothetically) say that person X never truly believes in the concept (not ceremony) of baptisim, is it heaven or hell for such a person? Also, must you truly go through the ceremony of baptisim to be baptisied ? (sp?) I did not go through the ceremony of baptisim untill the age of 11, but the year before I believe I was truly baptised. Enough about me....Thoughts?

 

[Jefferson]

I have a problem though with the youth who believe: "I was baptised as a baby, so im straight with all that God and heaven crap."

What about the adults who believe that?

 

[godrulz]

What do you know about quotes? You have failed to realize that spiritual truth is verbally expressed in aphorisms - the verbal equivalent of mathematical equations.

Huh? If you are talking about an allegorical vs literal approach to Scripture, no wonder you are off base.

Scripture has historical narratives, didactic (doctrinal) portions, wisdom literature, etc. All truth is not expressed in ditties. Proverbs may be comparable, but are not the only vehicle for pithy truth.

 

[godrulz]

I agree with this 110% because what is baptism as we know it today? A ceremony that shows to others that an individual believes in the faith and has excepted God. I have a problem though with the youth who believe: "I was baptised as a baby, so im straight with all that God and heaven crap." This is not to say that I dont support the baptisim of an infant, but lets (hypothetically) say that person X never truly believes in the concept (not ceremony) of baptisim, is it heaven or hell for such a person? Also, must you truly go through the ceremony of baptisim to be baptisied ? (sp?) I did not go through the ceremony of baptisim untill the age of 11, but the year before I believe I was truly baptised. Enough about me....Thoughts?

Biblically, baptism is for believers, not babies who lack moral and mental capacity to receive Christ (a condition for becoming a believer).

The Catholic sacrament of infant baptism is not when we are 'born again'.