Total posts: 3,520
-->
@Best.Korea
What does blessing mean in your view?
For me when we give thanks before eating, it is merely thanking God for his provisions to us. It is not to make the food healthier or less evil.
Indeed, if we decided to eat or drink poison and thanked God for it, it would be mocking God.
Food is not made holier by blessing it.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
At Pentecost.
Baptism was by what appeared to be flames of fire on the head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Basically we both accept a notion of Universal purpose.
Ok.
Though your notion comes loaded with unnecessary speculation.
LOL at you. My so-called speculation comes from a book that anyone can read. Yours comes from your own brain. Which is unnecessary? LOL!
Picked up along the way as you thrashed about in the spiritual undergrowth looking for something that was never really there.
Whatever. I never found it. It found me. While I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. The difference between Christianity and other religions is that specific point. God came to us. We could never please him or get to him.
And although you think you found something, you have no way of showing me what it is.
My point exactly. I don't think I found something. Until you even start to get the gist of that notion, you will continue to fumble.
Because there is nothing to see.
Of course not. I can't show you what is invisible. But what is invisible is able to make itself visible. Even as he made himself visible to me. And to millions of other people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I agree! God will determine what is good and wicked, so therefore, whatever God states is good, then it is good. Just because we don't like or agree with his decisions doesn't mean it is considered wicked.
Yes. God is above the law. He determines these things. Not us. Our disagreement to the laws of the land don't invalidate them objectively, even if we think they are subjective.
The dialogue above is interesting because I would never think that people would be so bold as to call God wicked, but this actually lines up with the book of Revelation where after the judgement from God is poured out, people will not repent but will curse God for being evil. There will be actual proof that God exists by this time and instead of trying to get on his good side and repenting, they will stand up and demand Him to stop his "wicked behavior". Then all will actually try to fight him later on during Armageddon! This proves to me that people really do believe there is a God, but would rather fight against Him rather than serve Him.
Anyone who doesn't like what God does is going to call it wicked. People have been cursing God since the day dot. I think there is proof God exists now. Otherwise, Romans 1:18-20 makes no sense. Evil people hold down the truth of God, rather than admitting it to themselves. It's the only way they can live and sleep at night. I also agree that as the world progresses that the divide between the church and the rest of the world will continue to grow. Yet I am an optimist.
Such insolence of mankind to think that we can fight against God. It really is comical. The real amazing thing about this all is the long-suffering God allows so people like this to come to repentance, hopefully seeing how goofy their thinking has been.
Yes, Psalm 2 reveals the true picture.
Probably a different subject, but the prophecy in the Bible is all lining up now and the world is ready for a "book of Revelation" showdown. It will be interesting to see all this play out.
Yeah, probably going to disagree with you there. I hold to the view that most of Revelation is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem. Not to the future for us.
I am what is called a "partial preterist". Not to be confused with a preterist as our friend PGA.20 is. He takes what I call an extreme (and incorrect imho) view on the end of the world. I might be wrong, and you can certainly ask him (he's quite articulate really). I think he believes that the second coming has already happened. And that Jesus is not going to physically return. He makes some solid arguments. And is worthy of listening to.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16Are you disagreeing with this? Faith and Baptism save you, but lack of Baptism is not inherently a road to condemnation--only lack of faith is.
Two things. If the verse is valid, it still doesn't mention water. Hence, I would say it is talking about Spirit Baptism.
Secondly, I actually don't think any verse after 8 in Mark 16 is scripture. The oldest manuscripts don't have v. 9-20. I think they were added by others and not the author.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I find it untenable to think that God is pure evil. the reason for this - is there is too much good in the world.This leaves only a holy God that intends for things to pass for his own holy will.False dichotomy. Evil as a sumation of one's character is a spectrum. There is no other instance where we would cast aside atrocities and reject that someone is evil because we can show one good thing they have done.
Sorry, you misunderstand. But happy to correct you.
Firstly, the options above are part of the function of possibilities, not just thrown randomly onto the page which is what your response implies.
Secondly, it is your assertion that evil as part of a character is on a spectrum. Perhaps you ought to prove your assertion rather than simply whine about "false dichotomies".
Thirdly, you are putting man-made qualities onto a divine person. Nowhere else do we have omniscience or omnipresence or omnipotence? The divine and the human do have similarities - but they also have their differences.
Besides, in my statement above - I never said - one good thing. I said, "There is too much good". And moreover, it has not been established that God whatever he is - has done any atrocity. We reject the good of a pedophile on the basis of his offence against children. But only after it has been proven. It is quite a different thing to say that an all-knowing, all-powerful all holy God has committed any evil - and then to condemn such good to the rubbish bin.
As I have said on numerous occasions, a judge orders a sentence on a convicted criminal and this is just. The criminal and his family might disagree and call it evil. Yet that is a subjective position. Not an objective one. If the sentence is within the laws of the land and the judge's discretion then it is objectively just and not evil.
In my opinion, the same applies to God as the judge of the universe. He sentences and judges all. Both the wicked and the good. And so far as he does so within the rules of his character, then it is just, no matter what the subjective position of those who have been sentenced feel, or those watching. The difference between God and the earthly judge however is also valid. In our courts and legal systems, we are accountable to the laws. No one including the judge is above the law. Yet God is above the law. For the law flows from his character. Hence, it is an absurdity in philosophical terms to call him unjust.
It is only reasonable to call God unjust or wicked if God is subject to the law. And that only makes sense if someone can hold him to account. How does someone hold God to account? It's an impossibility. It's an absurdity.
My point is simple really. You don't have to believe in God. Totally your choice. Yet the God the Bible describes cannot be characterised as evil or wicked by a reasonable person, since to do so, ipso facto, has to deny what the bible says about its God in order to then subscribe other parts of the bible to God. It's nonsense.
The rational thing would be to say - the God of the Bible is a myth and leave it at that. But once you start arguing the case, you have to deal with the dilemma of the God who is above the law - as opposed to one who is beneath the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
The God of the Bible is good. He is not wicked. He is holy.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The Christian religion offers plenty of benefits to its followers. It encourages them to do good. It discourages them from evil. It gives them morality. It gives them the guide - The Holy Bible. It comforts them in difficult times with a prayer. It reminds them to think of God and pray every day. It reminds them that there is God who loves them and cares for them and expects them to do good.What are the benefits of atheism? If God doesnt exist, the religion still has all the benefits above. However, atheism has no benefits even if God doesnt exist. It has no morality. It has no comfort for its followers. Atheism just makes life worse.Are there any benefits of atheism? None. The fact that Christian religion is beneficial to society means that anyone promoting atheism is harming society.Best countries in the world are Christian countries. To abandon Christianity, that would be harmful for our society.Atheism is not just a lack of belief in God. Without God, you fall into lack of morality, lack of guide and lack of comfort.We need religion. It is our basis for life. The fact that life is better with religion proves that religion is correct and atheism is wrong.
There is no benefit in remaining an atheist. Neither in this life nor in the next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We have been discussing.Though nothing as yet has led me to consider that the hopeful speculative theist is actually on to something different.
Nope, we have not been discussing.
You have been rhetorising as have I. Hence why a question might actually push the conversation on. Or do you have a reason not to?
Created:
-->
@b9_ntt
Your #4 is correct. God does not exist, except in the minds of humans.
Good for you.
It is one of only 4 possibilities. It of course is so extremely unlikely that it would rationally be deemed impossible.
Yet I am pleased that you have at least revealed your true colours.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Baptism in water does not save us. We are commanded to baptise and then teach others. Matt 28
The Bible separates the two. Water and Spirit. and it also brings them together.
Yet, baptism doesn't save us. Christ does on the cross. It's his death which pays the penalty for sin. The Baptism of the Spirit is what regenerates our heart from its natural sinful heart to a heart that can trust and believe.
Water is a symbol of reality - it is not reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
'If you want to have a proper discussion, ask a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Bible is an objective book.There you go again Trade.I've already stated how yes, an object in itself is objective.But as a doctrine, it is pretty useless without its subjective content.
You think you are so clever.
And yet you really don't know the first thing do you?
You change the goalposts and the meaning of the words more than you do your own undies.
yes, the bible is an object and it has stories in it and lots of other literature. You say they are subjective. Why? Is it because they are written by people? It is written by people with their own experiences. Why is it subjective? Because what was written - was done so thousands of years ago and we can't prove who wrote what and when?
Every book today is written by people living their own experiences. Does that make them all subjective, including the scientific and mathematical textbooks? Under your definition- yes.
I say that a book written down which really hasn't changed very much at all over 4000 years is a pretty significant thing. It is clearly objective thoughts and writing next to feelings and emotions. There is subjectivity and there is subjectivity.
What makes something objective?
Doctrine just means teaching. And the teaching of the bible is objective, not subjective. In other words, people can deduce it from reading it according to a methodology that is acceptable. I don't know why I bother continuing to repeat the same old things over again. You know the truth - you just want to play devil's advocate all of the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No, the bible is not a theory at all. The Bible doesn't need to be proved or disproved. That doesn't stop it from being an objective tool.
The Bible is an objective book that anyone can read if they chose to do so. It is not just a subjective feeling or unarticulated thought.
Yes, it is a collection of stories and other bits of literature collected over 4000 years or so. Yet it all has one story. And true it commenced in one part of the world, but it speaks to people all over the world and in all parts of history.
They are subjective stories - but now in objective form.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
There is meaning in symbolism.
Pouring water on kids' heads is symbolic of the Coming of the Spirit - the same picture as Pentecost.
I don't think you are silly, but often the words you present don't mean much.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You cannot possibly have a good god enabling all the bad things, it doesn't possibly work. You're either wilfully lying or too stupid to follow, any prophet who says this is corrupt.
The simple possibilities are listed below:
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then
1. God planned all things and brought all things to pass or
2. He didn't. If he didn't, he could have planned almost all things to pass, right down to nothing at all.
If the first is true, then either God does all things with a holy purpose for good in accordance with his will, or
he is an evil and vindictive god with an enormous amount of power and no goodwill. Effectively someone to be very afraid of.
If the second is true, then assuming he has the power to stop it, but chose not to for whatever reason that might be, it makes God to be reckless and effectively malicious in my view.
If God is not omniscient and omnipotent, then
3. God couldn't stop evil even if he wanted to. Or he didn't know what was going to happen, and so didn't know when to stop it.
If no god exists, then
4, all evil exists anyway despite the fact that god does not. And proves that god is just a convenient scapegoat for evil humans to blame evil on - rather than accept the responsibility themselves.
In my view, since I find the notion of evolution and the world improbable statistically without a designer, I do believe in God. For me, the sheer reality demonstrates that things did not occur by chance and randomness. This is too absurd to seriously contemplate.
Yet, for God to create the world, and to name the stars by name, demonstrates a profound knowledge that is so far above anyone on this planet, that omniscience might be suitably attributable to him. It also demonstrates a significant amount of power to create and sustain such stars and planets. How these words might be defined might be a good question but I am comfortable with definitions that are so great that omniscience and omnipotence are appropriate. Even if he does know all things and cannot do all things. Hence, 3 really is just a nod to the liberal in the church who want their cake and to eat it as well.
I find it untenable to think that God is pure evil. the reason for this - is there is too much good in the world.
This leaves only a holy God that intends for things to pass for his own holy will.
Philosophically, this seems the only palatable position to take and is also the way that God describes himself in the Bible.
I don't think is stupid or lying. Nor a corrupt way to think.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you," - 1 Peter 3:21a
The context reveals that water symbolises baptism which saves you. Not that the water saves you, but the baptism of the Spirit, which water baptism symbolises.
Hence, water baptism does not save. Spirit baptism does.
Nor do I think all should be baptised.Why not?
For what purpose?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's one of those things that people decided to do Trade.And afterwards they thought,Isn't this brilliant.And sooooo meaningful.
Yes, it is meaningful. And brilliant actually.
And others go in for penis mutilation.Brilliant.
Strictly speaking, it is not penis mutilation. That would imply the penis is effectively useless afterwards. Interestingly, some might call it mutation, a form of evolution - survival of the fittest.
And the Lord said unto them,Showeth me a nice clean head.
Just silliness. Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Weeties not my favourite Trade.
Nor mine.
Porridge is the stuff.
Nor mine either.
And perhaps we don't read the same dictionary, or perhaps we read the same dictionary but not in the same way.
A hypothesis in it's narrative form is objective, in so much as it is a demonstrable documentation of said hypothesis, but this in no way objectively substantiates the hypothetical content of the narrative.In fact, hypothetical and subjective could be said to be synonymous.
So what you are saying is that objective and subjective are the same thing. Seriously. I don't think a hypothesis is anything but a theory until it is proven.
Please try and make some sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TraumaTango
You sound like an intriguing person.
It'd be good to chat sometime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The original words of the Bible should not be evidence to negate this solely because the idea of communism and socialism would have not been accurately translated nonetheless.
That is likely to be the case. As communism and socialism are relatively new ideas - 18-20th century, although there are traces that might appear is other forms as well in history. People have always look for some kind of utopia.
So, as a non-theist, the heavens just sounds like a filter system where only the "best", the "most moral" people are selected to go do, the others go to hell or something like that. The morals align with the common knowledge of humanity for the most part, such as altruism and genuinity in actions, etc.
That's kind of intriguing to me. For me, heaven will have all sorts of people. It is not a filter really, save and except for people who really don't want to be there and people who don't wish to demonstrate loyalty to their king. Hence there will be all sorts of people there.
That would mean in the heavens:
- People are obedient
- People can live with other people in peace and harmony without discrimination for the most part
- People are all similar and share similar beliefs
- People are not greedy and only take what they need
- People actually think(which ironically is something a great deal of theists lack today --- They wouldn't qualify for their own heavens!)
- People can love and enjoy life
Again intriguing spin. Is someone being obedient if they are simply doing what they want to do? My wife could command me to kiss her. Would I see that as obedience if I kissed her or not? I could put that spin on - but why? I like to kiss my wife - and I don't even need a command to do so. I think the same thing happens in heaven. People want to do the right thing. Obedience is simply spin.
I think people in heaven will have a variety of views. People will probably have the same views they have now. Of course they might be more informed. Yet, backgrounds and cultures will still be in play.
I reject the idea that theists don't think. That is just nonsense. Theists tend to be the people who think the most and write the most and publish the most. Today and in history. They might think differently from a non-theist but that doesn't qualify as not thinking. I might think that non-theists don't think very deeply. I. might think that non-theists don't want to ask deep questions. But that would be true for only some not all.
The result for this would be utopia based on how the system idealistically works. If we filter people to only benevolent ones that share a belief, surely we could get communism working, eh?
Communism has never worked and will never work. It relies upon the view that people are basically good.
And yet some of the conservatives keep saying that God intended America to be capitalist and white. I am curious to see how many, if any, priests and preachers in the US would get into the heavens they themselves applied soundly inside built halls.
I'm not American so I can't speak for them. But in Australia, the Christians don't go on about capitalist and white. Perhaps capitalism - which reflects more accurately the selfishness and self-interest of people. But not the white part. Many conservative Christians I know come from Asia and Africa.
Correct me if I am wrong about anything, and yes, we know BrotherD.Thomas is being intentionally loathful.
That I do agree with. BDT is always intentionally loathful.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Baptism is not a show or meant to be a public-display. Baptism is meant to save us, and all are to be Baptized
Ok.
I don't agree that baptism is meant to save us. Nor do I think all should be baptised.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
He asked to leave.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Way I usually hear it,Baptism always sounded an act that signifies an individuals faith and bond with God,
Ok. But in many places, baptism is about a promise, not attainment. In Baptist churches, baptism is typically seen as a sign of having made it. In churches that practice infant baptism, it is a sign of God's promises to them if they persevere.
Even if a baby I suppose, though in such a case it'd be the guardians stating it,Whether because the guardians believed it, or they thought the child ought have such,
There are a variety of views within the church even for infant baptism. Some churches do believe that baptism makes that child a christian. nevertheless, not all do. Faith is a crazy thing to talk about. I'd say that John the Baptist had faith in his mother's womb and leapt when his mother drew close to Jesus in Mary's womb.
Though I 'do only ever recall individuals being baptized 'by other individuals, no self baptisms that I can ever recall,Even Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
True. the NT does not record any self-baptisms. John baptised Jesus. John was presumably baptised by the Levites. John the Baptist did not practice Christian baptism. He practised a Jewish form of baptism, ritual cleansing, and anointing. Christian Baptism did not take place until Pentecost. Christ did not receive the authority to baptise with the Spirit until he rose from the dead. Matthew 28 provides that this authority was given at that point. It is true that Jesus' disciples were baptising prior to Jesus' death and resurrection. Yet those baptisms were more in line with the Jewish baptisms. It was not Christian baptism until Pentecost.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Could you explain why babies, (male) were circumcised in the OT? Was there a point to it? Was there an element of faith involved? Was there a notion of identifying with the people of Israel?I think circumcision was more of a faith move for the parents of the child, as a representation of them giving their child into the hands of God, not as a sacrificial representation, but a faithful one.
It was a commandment of God, wasn't it? Any faith had to do with the promises of God by way of covenant.
I am referring to circumcision because some Christians - the Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Reformers, Lutherans, and others suggest that there is a link between the two, but also because there is a commandment of God in the OT, the weaker shadow of the NT, where it was applied specifically to infants, (male) at an age whereby they could not possibly have faith.As a Christian, I believe that there is no physical type of ritual that we must do. To be a Christian means to love and believe in God, and to strive to have a better relationship with him.God has already done his part, now we must do ours to have a better relationship with him.
I agree that there is no physical type of ritual we MUST do to become a Christian. Yet a command is a command, isn't it? A command is a must. And Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise and teach. Surely you believe that? A Christian is one who has been baptised by the Spirit of God. One who has been "born again".
Nothing that we physically do determines our faith. Do you have to be circumcised in order to be a Christian? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between your parents and God.
Circumcision is OT. Baptism is NT. I am not sure what you mean by "determines our faith".
Do you have to be baptized in order to be a Christain? No, but it does strengthen the relationship between you and God.Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."Live by faith, not by sight.
Does the bible say live by faith and not by sight? We need to be baptised by the Spirit of God to be Christian. No Baptism, no salvation. Baptism in water does not save. Yet it symbolised what God has promised. In other words, Baptism in water is a representation of the reality of true baptism.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Well, even if there was no church or community around at the moment,I just thought some people might still think baptism important,Whether because they thought it an important ritual of tradition, or the individual to be baptized belief made apparent through action.I meant the 'parent, baptize their own kid.
Again good questions.
Baptism is important. That is true in my view. But does it belong to the church or to the family? And what is its purpose?
In the book of Acts, there is an Ethiopian man who comes to faith through the reading of the Scriptures. Phillip, who was effectively a church leader, baptised him. This was in the middle of nowhere. He was away from towns and communities and desired to be baptised straightway. There wasn't the witness of other people.
So, I suppose it can happen that people are separated. Yet in this case, Phillip was a deacon in the church. I can't think of any situation in the NT where someone was baptised by someone who wasn't a leader in the church.
I don't think parents have the authority to baptise their children. If someone came to our church and desired to be a member and told me they had been baptised by their dad in the local river, our church would not consider that baptism. We would baptise that person before they could become a member. Of course, if they had been baptised as part of another congregation, whether it was our denomination or another then their baptism would be accepted. (So far as it was a legitimate church)
As I said above, baptism is one of those things which belong to the church. It is what distinguishes the church from the State, from the Family, and from other organisations. It is not just a tradition or a Christian rite. It was given to the Church. and is one of its keys.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why is it important you remember your own specific baptism, as opposed to the promises of God?Surely God's work in your life is the important thing, not your own moment of fame?One does not exclude the other. Remembering your baptism creates more joy towards God, as it makes individuals think about God more. You cannot think of baptism without remembering God.
Remembering your own baptism can bless you. There is no question about it. Yet not remembering my baptism doesn't stop me from being blessed when I see my children baptised.
And when I see my children have their children baptised, I am blessed as I see the continuing promises of God honoured.
I am blessed whenever I see the sacrament undertaken. It is the grace of God being extended to his people.
The question is whether we see baptism as an individualist Western idea or as a covenant - family orientated idea of the Middle East.
The bible contained household baptisms. Why would it mention this unless it contained infants?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Why in the world would a family want to baptise a child if there were no church around? Baptism isn't making a person a Christian, it's identifying with the church and Christ. Perhaps one reason is that they want to start their own church.
And why would kids want to baptise kids? Where would they get the idea?
In my understanding, the visible church is the local church of Christians and their children gathered together as one body, who worship God publicly on a Sunday and then worship God privately throughout the week.
It is an organisation. It is more than a building it is also more than the people.
Also - I suppose there are exceptions to the rule. But really doesn't make the rule invalid. Moreso it proves the rule.
Good questions and thanks.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Eh, I'm not a Christian, but still find discussion interesting.
Thanks for engaging without the need to be vile or argumentative or insulting.
1, Silence can mean guideline I suppose,People being proactive 'can be good.
The argument against infant baptism is silence. Yet Baptists don't apply this argument from silence consistently. If they did, then they would also stop females from having communion. They don't. Why? Baptists say we can infer females have communion in the NT. And moreover, there is NO commandment against it. I agree with these reasons why they give females communion. Yet, they should apply this to infants. And they don't.
2, If someone 'is mentally disabled to the point they don't understand where they are, what they're doing, agreeing to,Well, they can't really 'have faith, I'd think.Suppose there's some evil person all their life, they get dementia, then get tricked into getting baptized, without understanding the situation or implications,I don't think that baptism did much.
Every week in church we see families who bring their disabled children with them. These children don't communicate in the same way as other children do, but you can certainly see they enjoy being at church. They wouldn't be able to stand up the front and articulate their faith, but then again, there are lots of adults who have been Christians for years who would struggle as well. I personally don't think that baptism is an agreement thing. So much as a promising thing, by parents and by congregational members.
Baptism doesn't make a person a Christian so there is no consent to being one. Children who grow up in any home, whether it be Christian or Athiest, are expected to live according to the rules of the home, even if they are opposed to them.
Baptism identifies someone with a group. Just like our name identifies us with our family. It is not a fix it.
3, It sounds there'd still need be a 'willingness and understanding of what one is willing towards.
The third argument is about "order". Baptists tend to say that there is a divine order which cannot be broken.
4, False faith and action 'does sound polluting to me,Like a politician who doesn't follow their faith,'Might help the church in some ways, harms it in others.
Church doctrine recognises there is an invisible church that is perfect and contains every true believer from day dot to the future. But it also recognises that there is a visible church on the planet today which contains both true and false Christians. Churches all over the world, know that from week to week, there are non-Christians in their congregations. Yet there is also such a breadth of what that means - that it is difficult to call it out. Hence why many churches have membership classes and rules that people need to comply with. There are sorting processes. The question however in relation to kids is - are they in or out before they reach an age of understanding? Many say yes they are in. Others say- no. But Baptists try to have it both ways. They say - faith is what gets them into the church, but if they die before they are old enough, then Jesus lets them into heaven even without faith. Those who agree with infant baptism allow them into the visible church, but let Jesus decide for himself who goes to heaven.
5, Catholics have some good points, I'm sure.
I agree. some.
My opinion is a parent can give their child their blessing,Child may 'say they refuse it,But eh, given is given,If I say bless you to someone who sneezed, they might wig out and say they're an anti-theist,But I might still wish them well, and already did in that hypothetical.
Blessing by a parent is one thing. Baptism however is something that belongs to the church, not to the parent.
Still, baptism sounds more 'action of faith,Display and promise,Than anything magic.
There is nothing magic in baptism. It is simply a badge of identity with the local church and with Christ. Faith for it does not need to come from the individual but from the church.
Non-baptized child, doesn't go to Hell (If it were to exist)To my thinking.
Honestly, I don't have an answer to that thought. It is one of the difficult ones. Our denomination clearly provides that all such children fall within the pale of God's grace and mercy. I'm happy to leave it in His hands. Nevertheless, I do think baptism, like circumcision in the OT, was a command. And in the OT, the command if broken had severe consequences.
To my thinking baptism is more gesture on parents part,Action bespeaking their love and intention to raise their child in faith, they believe correct and right.
Ok. For my part, I think baptism is a sacrament of the church, not the family. Families go to church, but it is the church that makes the rules. Not the parents.
One year old baby doesn't understand birthday,But is gesture by family at times.
It would be rare for a family not to give their child a first birthday party. Even though they don't understand. But it is more than the child's views that are considered. It is a declaration to others that this is our child and he belongs with us. and the child may look back on the photos of that occasion and not recall it. But they will surely cherish it. And be glad it happened.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I assume the optimal age for baptism is age 7 or 8.I think its important that a person remembers his baptism.
Interesting opinion.
Why? Why is it important you remember your own specific baptism, as opposed to the promises of God? Surely God's work in your life is the important thing, not your own moment of fame?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I agree with this argument.
I am pleased you have an opinion.
Baby's should not be baptised, because then what is the point?The whole point of you getting baptized is you are taking a step of faith and showing others that you are a son or daughter of God.
Could you explain why babies, (male) were circumcised in the OT? Was there a point to it? Was there an element of faith involved? Was there a notion of identifying with the people of Israel?
I am referring to circumcision because some Christians - the Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Reformers, Lutherans, and others suggest that there is a link between the two, but also because there is a commandment of God in the OT, the weaker shadow of the NT, where it was applied specifically to infants, (male) at an age whereby they could not possibly have faith.
Created:
In a new book recently published about the benefits of infant baptism, the author commenced with an interesting perspective.
He didn't start with proving infant baptism by biblical evidence, but rather he commenced by refuting the arguments commonly used against infant baptism. It is too bad that Melcharaz is not here to discuss this. But I am sure there are some other resident Christians who might be able to extend his arguments.
The author raised the common arguments against and then refuted each one.
1. The silence of infant baptism in the NT. He argued argument from silence is weak since silence also suggests that females should not have communion.
2. The argument that baptism requires faith which equates to capacity which infants can't have. He argued this argument proved too much making it invalid as it also suggested that anyone without capacity is unable to be baptised including adults with extreme autism.
3. The argument of order in the NT. faith always proceeds Baptism. He argued this is actually not true with the authority for baptism derived from Matthew 28 which orders baptism first followed by teaching and discipling.
4. The argument that since infants can't be Christians, baptising pollutes the church. He argued that often adults also leave the faith so therefore they too are polluting the church.
5. The argument that it is a popish hangover. He argues that not everything about the Catholic Church was wrong.
Are there other arguments that are not mentioned? Do any of the Christians here have any comments about these arguments against infant baptism
I note that this is an intriguing method of promoting infant baptism. So far in his argument he has not once argued for infant baptism. Only that the arguments against it don't hold as much water as has been argued. In a sense he is destroying strongholds - and once they are destroyed, he will be in a place to rebuild and make his case.
Obviously for non-christians - this discussion is almost irrelevant and yet within some Christian circles - it clearly is a huge issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
As a general rule of principle, I would say that the God of the Bible is not wicked.
On the other hand, I would suggest that anyone who is wicked is tainted in any such representations they make. Hence Stephen is biased in his views. And could not make an objective statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Objective Christian doctrine.Hmmmmmmm.So, if this is the basis of objectivity, then any narrative qualifies.
Hi Zed,
as always you seem to say something and then don't.
There is such a thing as objective Christian doctrine. This is what the creeds are. What the councils discussed. How the confessions came about.
Objective and subjective are two different things. The former is where two or more people come to the same position using similar methodologies. The latter is where no one else is able to reach the same conclusion save and except that they believe another person because they do.
An example of the latter is Stephen and or the Brother. they both make stuff up and no one else in the entire world comes to the same conclusion all by themselves.
Objectivity rules out - "any narrative qualifies". Did you forget to have your weeties today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
depends on your perspective and how you define wicked. If you believe God is the absolute and/or objective morality author, then what he says is wicked, is wicked.but if not, then its according to your or mankinds perspective, which is as stable as wind.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Let's start with the one reason you don't believe in infant baptism.right off the bat you assume you know what i think about infant baptism. I assume you will tell me why i eat tuna next?i dont argue against infant baptism on the precept of silence. i argue against it based on scripture. here is 1 verse.But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.can infants believe God is? no, therefore they cannot come to God, the baptism is of no effect without faith.
I never said it was the only reason. But it is one. And yes I know you think that because it is the primary reason people are opposed to it. Your provided reason is the second reason people use. And the problem, for this reason, is that it PROVES too much. It makes God to be opposed to the vulnerable. And I reckon you can't even figure out why. So I will explain to you why. The argument suggests that "faith" is the issue. Therefore anyone without faith is unable to come to God. This means therefore that babies that aborted, toddlers who can't articulate their faith, adults who have autism or other severe mental health issues are rejected by God because they can't have faith. This is contrary to everything the bible says of course. So what do people with your terrible logic do? Rather than admit you might have it wrong, you change the goal posts. You introduce an age of accountability and then say that faith is irrelevant in such situations.
You fail to realise that in the NT, Jesus often acted on the faith of another person for a person's healing. You also fail to realise that salvation belongs to God not to man and or his faith. Yet it still comes back to this point. Your argument blocks the most vulnerable from access to God. You suggest that intelligence is what matters to God for that is what faith is to you if they need to be old enough to demonstrate it. I notice you ignore the testimony of John the Baptist who while still in the womb and unable to articulate his faith, nevertheless, demonstrated his faith, by jumping in the womb when Jesus was close by.
Jesus cast the demons out by the Spirit of God. I noticed you said faith, that is what so called faith healers say.you admit that you noticed i said faith, yet still accused me of topically applying spirit. you seem to be good at falsely accusing and then being flippant about it.
That's because you were. And I wasn't being flippant. I was telling it how it was.
he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire.you dont have the holy spirit and therefore are not my brother/sister via blood or spirit. We just agree that jesus saves as far as i can tell, no brotherhood there.
Well the testimony of my presbyterian congregation, the PCV, the Baptist church in Australia, the Charismatic churches I used to attend, the Episcopalian church in Australia, the local Church of Christ, other local pentecostal churches, all say differently to you. From their point of view, and mine and I believe the Bible, we all would declare your position on me to be incorrect and out of step with the church and the bible. If you are suggesting that you are not a brother of those in the church, then that is a matter for you. I will let God be your judge.
Hey it is my view that God heals and not us. Yet that is not what you were saying above. You asked whether we healed or cast out demons. Now you change the goalposts.another false accusation, i asked concerning your works, not the authority. if you have no works of faith then i dont need to ask the authority, as faith in you is dead.
LOL @ you. you don't even know your own mind.
Do you even read your bible? Or do you just sit on your bed, like Benny Hinn and wait for the Spirit to sit next to you and show you?i dont know what benny does, nor his beliefs. but i do read AND i pray. which is what scripture tells us to do.
Well I am pleased you don't know Benny Hinn. that is a relief. Although much of what you have been saying is pretty much out of his textbook.
i perdict any future discussion will simply come to more false witnessing and strawman's on your part, you seem angry and emotional. I notice you no longer bless me the moment i started opposing your beliefs.
So you admit you are a false prophet? Please notice, it's a question, not an assertion. I am not angry, nor am I irrational. Name-calling typically demonstrates an acknowledgment that your arguments are weak. I haven't cursed you and have taken care not to berate you too much. You continue to ignore my question to you about your view of God and the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God and a person? OR do you think he is an it, a power?
i believe you will fail soon, and when you hit the bottom, remember that emotions dont guide, they only reinforce.that being said, i wont respond anymore to you until you seem open to what i have to say and stop acting like a know it all emotionally charged little girl who tells me what i think and believe and you dont even know my name. Until then, i ask God help give you his peace.
You only need to respond when you want to. I don't have any personal vendetta against you. I think your theology is dodgy but that's a different matter. If you love Jesus, and you seek to share his gospel, that to me is honourable. But it was you who said you had a right to correct bad theology. Surely, you wouldn't think that the same should not be applied to you when you communicate bad theology. And just because you want to silence me by saying I don't have the Holy Spirit is a weak and cowardly thing to do - even or especially if you believe it. Still, I will pray that God softens your heart to the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I recently have been introduced to a user by the name of Stephen who has the idea that the God of the Bible is "wicked". I would like Stephen to come on and describe his view of the Biblical God being wicked.
Good luck with that. What's the bet, he never gives his definition but just asks you to provide it. I wouldn't waste my time. Just put him on block and stop him from trolling you.
He is not worth communicating with and is a chronic liar. More than that he is on a mission to distort as much of the bible as he can. (Ironically though, he seems to have a bigger issue with Islam)
In relation to your question with respect to God being wicked, is this in relation to God as a person or in relation to what he brings about? And to whom?
For instance, if God destroys an entire world of people, save for Noah and his family, is his act wicked? Or is it an act of judgment that is lawful and just and therefore good? I am sure that all those who were destroyed may well subjectively think this was a wicked act. As would millions of people in the world today who think that such an act could not possibly be good or just.
How could God justify killing unborn babies, toddlers, animals, and trees? Were they sinful? Isn't there an implicit notion that destroying them is wicked? If Satan or Hitler did it, then it would be considered the evil or wicked act of a wicked person. What is the distinction?
Personally, I think his destruction of the world was justified perfectly. I don't think God is wicked. Yet I appreciate or at least acknowledge that those who are the recipients of such justice may consider this to be wicked towards them. That of course doesn't change the objective nature of what happened. Every day in court, judges hand out justice and the criminals always feel that the judgment is too harsh and therefore wicked.
God either intends all things to come to pass or he doesn't. If he is omniscient and omnipotent, then whether or not his intention is that such evil acts occur, he still permits it to happen, even though he could stop it. This would make him culpable as well unless everything he does or intends is for a specific holy purpose. The question then becomes a little more interesting. Does the end for a good and holy purpose justify the means? That is a far more profound question. One that Stephen and his boyfriend Brother D Thomas do not even have the capacity to ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Paul asked a serious question when he asked "do all people speak in tongues? " And his question in the Greek implies a no. Even Paul knew it wasn't the only evidence for having the Spirit of God. It's amazing that you think you know more than Paul.i dont think i know more than paul or God (as God gave him the knowledge) but i know he is referring to the eventual ending of the need for the gift of tongues, not the removal of the evidence thereof which accompanies recieving the Holy Spirit. thats a distinction most brainwashed hellbound demoninal and traditional guided false christians dont understand because they dont have the Holy Spirit.
Please explain the distinction then rather than playing games. And stop with the language. Jesus indicated that we will know his followers by their fruit- and by their love for one another and for their enemies.
I think Sidewinder has every right to discuss the bible and its verses. If he can demonstrate what he is saying, I don't have an issue with that at all.and i have the right to rebuke/correct someone in error according to scripture.
No, you don't. You have a right to discuss his answers and to respond appropriately. that doesn't include judgmentalism. It doesn't include abuse. As for correction, by what authority do you have any right to rebuke him? You are not his pastor or his elder. He is not a believer and is not under your jurisdiction. Correcting an interpretation of a passage is a good thing, but it is not your right.
That's elitist and it's wrongnot at all, if there is truth that you are incapable of understanding, then as scripture shows, your mind is blinded by the god of this world (satan). if you need verses for anything just ask!
Yes, it is elitist and it's wrong. I accept that truth can be perceived as elitist, but only if it is done in love. Love is not elitist. And therefore it is doubtful that the truth can be elitist. And in any event, you have yet to show me that you know the truth.
Wait until we talk about infant baptism and why baptism in the NT can't possibly be submersion. that will really rock your boat.that shows that not only are you ignorant of context, but also greek language. i assure you, you dont have the knowledge to "rock my boat" but bring forth your strong reasons, by God's understanding ill disprove them all.
I will be very happy to show you the Greek and Biblical understanding of baptism. Let's start with the one reason you don't believe in infant baptism. Yes, I know you have more. But let's start with one. The most common one is - there are no specific examples of any infants being baptised in the NT. This of course is an argument from silence. The argument concludes that unless there is one example, then the NT church did not practice it, otherwise they would have provided a specific example. Of course, anyone with half a brain can see the fallacy of this argument. Imagine if we applied that to the other sacrament, communion. And imagine if we applied this test to females having communion. Unless we can find one specific example of a female having communion, then we should accept that the NT did not give females communion. Does this prove females didn't have communion? No. Does the fact that there are no specific baptisms of infants prove that they didn't occur? No. It is an argument from silence and therefore is of no help whatsoever. I will keep going, but perhaps it should be on one post at a time, not mixed with the rest of our ramblings.
Well, that's an interesting perspective. You certainly haven't shown any ability to do so. But I am happy to hear what you have to say.I cant read your mind, i dont know how you discern or apply the 9 gifts. for all i know you could be wanting me to tell you your mothers maiden name to prove prophecy.
Do you know my mother's maiden name? I know you can't read my mind. But you raised the issue of me not applying the gifts. 9. really, haven't you read Romans?
LOL @ you. the Pharisees could cast out demons - without the Spirit of God. Mormons and JWs and eastern religions, including the new agers regularly heal the sick.ah, but i didnt say they had the spirit of God, i said BY FAITH. anyone who has faith can do the works of faith. Thats not the same as the gifts of the spirit. already i see that you lack discernment between faith and the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus cast the demons out by the Spirit of God. I noticed you said faith, that is what so called faith healers say. You however continue to not say much at all.
If you could do these things which you can't, you would be obligated to go down to the local hospital and perform some miracles. But hey, you won't or when you get there - they don't get healed do they? they don't have strong enough faith.You fool. Do i heal or does God heal? I pray and command "In the name of Jesus Christ" and those who are healed, are healed by God.and no, just because i may or may not have the gift of healing, doesnt mean i can use it how I want to. I have to do what God tells me to do.There will be many in hell who healed the sick because THEY THOUGHT it was God's will, but it wasnt. IT was THEIR thoughts.No, The right way to use the gifts is how God tells me to.There is no point in discussing that with you though, by your assertion i see you are too blinded to understand what God's will is concerning HIS gifts.
he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Isn't that what Jesus said? Hey it is my view that God heals and not us. Yet that is not what you were saying above. You asked whether we healed or cast out demons. Now you change the goalposts.
Do you even read your bible? Or do you just sit on your bed, like Benny Hinn and wait for the Spirit to sit next to you and show you? It is not me who is blind, but I will pray for you.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
you interpreting my questions as rude says more about you than me. ive spoken with people who showed similar lack of understanding as yours BECAUSE of a language barrier or a traditional exegetical methodology. stop being selfish for 5 seconds and think about WHY questions are asked, this isnt about you or your ego.
You were being rude. I've not going to lie for you - just so that you don't feel bad. I'm not being selfish either. You accused me of not having the Spirit and of stretching words out of context. I said, many commentaries agree with me. and I think such judgmental attitudes needs to be addressed. There is no church on earth that is exclusively right. And yet the invisible church, has an umbrella for many congregations of different denonominations. I might not agree with many of the doctrines of many of these churches, yet so far as we do agree with the primary doctrines then the secondary doctrines - although important, aren't salvific.
such primary doctrines are in relation to God, the Trinity, Jesus as God. Jesus' physical death and bodily resurrection. The Spirit of God descending at Pentecost. The second coming. And in relation to salvation, Christ's atonement for his people on the cross.
Most other doctrines, like baptism, communion, the gifts of the Spirit, church government, sanctification, eschatology, the bible, are secondary doctrines on which people all around the world have different views. Is there one right understanding? Probably, yet differing on these things do not stop one from being a Christian. Recall Peter and James and Paul at the first council of Jerusalem. Each came with different views. They were all still Christians at that point. They discovered or held the council to sort out their doctrines. They even had a serious argument. Peter was wrong. Paul was right. Peter's views were challenged and he changed his view. All remained Christians.
So called believers outside of umbrella are not historically in line with the biblical understanding of Christian. Either because they reject the Trinity or because they incorporate the Trinity into their already polytheistic worldview. Or they reject the deity of Jesus. Or that he rose bodily and physically from the grave. Others reject the idea that Jesus is returning. Having a distorted view on baptism as do the baptists however doesn't make them heretics. Or taking a wrong direction in relation to church government does not make one a heretic. These things of course, cause problems or create them, but it doesn't push them out. suggesting that all people must speak in tongues - as a sign or evidence of the Spirit is not historical Christian thinking. It is a relatively new thought and changes what Jesus said - which is that you will know my people because of their love for one another. Respectfully, you don't seem to show that much love for the brethren or for your enemies. Perhaps I have only seen what you write to me. But even with your - in my view - of your outlying extreme views on the Spirit, this would not exclude you from being a Christian. Yet you did not answer me about whether you see the Spirit as a person or an it. I am not sure from your writing whether you hold to the Trinity or not. I am wondering whether you are part of a group known as the Oneness. Still, that is a matter for you.
the commentaries allow it in exegeting the context to ALL OF SCRIPTURE. not that 1 verse. i do wish you to show me the commentaries that show the idea of "sons of God taking responsibility" WITHOUT CROSS REFERENCING TO ANOTHER VERSE(S) it doesnt exist, unless its non scholarly.
Commentaries often cross reference. Do you have a problem with that? And given your understanding that the evidence of the Spirit is speaking in tongues, I honestly don't think you are much of a scholar. I am not trying to be offensive, but most Pentecostals I know and most charismatics I know who speak in tongues would never be as hardline as you. In fact, the ones which had a similar view were considered even by the Pentecostals as "outside of ordinary pentecostalism".
The Romans passage I referred to above is used in the way I did. It's not the only way, but it fits - and not with a shoehorn, but naturally. Let me guess. You are also one of those people who think the end of the world is imminent. As in the rapture is going to happen any minute. Eschatologlically, I hold to the biblical position of Postmillenialism. Sometimes I call it optimistic Amil. I grew up in a dispensational premill congregation. Thankfully, God guided me away from that position as he systematically helped me to become more consistent in understanding the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
I'm not sure either of you have the right to speak. trade denies tongues as evidence of the holy spirit, which is in the bible, sidewalker denies that jesus said he is the son of God, which is in john 10:36.
I don't deny that tongues was evidence for some people in the NT of the Holy Spirit, but you have not demonstrated why it still is the case today. Paul asked a serious question when he asked "do all people speak in tongues? " And his question in the Greek implies a no. Even Paul knew it wasn't the only evidence for having the Spirit of God. It's amazing that you think you know more than Paul.
I think Sidewinder has every right to discuss the bible and its verses. If he can demonstrate what he is saying, I don't have an issue with that at all. I even think it's ok for you to explain yourself - despite the fact that you seem well, interesting to say the least.
frankly, yall both need to pray, cause your brains cant recieve the word of God, you got satan blinding your minds.
That's elitist and it's wrong. Wait until we talk about infant baptism and why baptism in the NT can't possibly be submersion. that will really rock your boat.
and im certain that neither of you exercise the gifts of the spirit.
Well, that's an interesting perspective. You certainly haven't shown any ability to do so. But I am happy to hear what you have to say.
probably dont even heal the sick or attempted to cast out a demon.(through faith in Jesus Christ)
LOL @ you. the Pharisees could cast out demons - without the Spirit of God. Mormons and JWs and eastern religions, including the new agers regularly heal the sick.
If you could do these things which you can't, you would be obligated to go down to the local hospital and perform some miracles. But hey, you won't or when you get there - they don't get healed do they? they don't have strong enough faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
He denied it in Matthew 23:9, Luke 18:19, and John 14:28.
Wow, you must be reading a different bible to me.
In Matthew 23:9 Jesus says: "Do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one father, and he is in heaven. "
Strange, I don't see any denials in this statement at all. What he says is - don't call people "father". Not meaning of course that people should not refer to their biological fathers on earth as father, but not to call people father, as in Spiritual father.
Jesus is not the Father, and he is neither a father, biologically nor spiritually. He is not the father of the church. If there is a denial in this passage, it is that he should not be called father, since he and the father are not the same person. It is not a denial that he is God, which is the topic here. So score a fail in relation to that passage. It is interesting though, it is a good reason not to call the pope, the pope. Pope means father.
the second passage is Luke 18:19. Where Jesus responds to the question by a rich man. His answer is "why do you call me good"? "No one is good except God alone".
Rather than denying he is God, this question actually suggests that Jesus is God. There is no denial here. He doesn't say to the rich man. Don't call me good. He says - why do you call me good? In other words, do you realise what you are saying by calling me good? Only God is good is what Jesus claims, hence to call me good is to call me God. That is the logic of the response by Jesus. A second fail for you.
the third passage is John 14:28.
"You have heard me say, I am going away, and I am coming back to you. If you loved me you would be glad I am going to the father for the father is greater than me. "
Again there is no denial in this passage. Jesus is declaring that he is going to die and rise again. He is going to the Father. But there is no denial that he is God. He denies I suppose that he is the Father. Which is absolutely true. Jesus is not the Father. Just like he is not the Holy Spirit. Yet Christian theology says - God is Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I suppose you are suggesting that since Jesus is saying the Father is greater than me, that this means that Jesus is not God. In other places, Jesus is worshiped as God, and he never forbids people from doing so. Yet worship is reserved for God alone. I don't see a denial here. The question of what greater means is discussed at length in the commentaries. I can't recall any suggesting this is a denial of Jesus' divinity. But it would be nice if you could find one which says denies it.
It is true that Jesus will deny he is the father. I deny that Jesus is the father. but denying Jesus is the father is not the same as denying that Jesus is God. Not in Christian circles anyway. God is Trinity. He is Father Son and Holy Spirit. And each are not the same as the other - although all are ONE.
So from my point of view - this too is a fail.
That is three fails - three places where there is no denial by Jesus of being God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
by the way, jesus called himself the son of God in verse 36. for those who thought he didntThe Bible says we are all God's children (1 John 3).Jesus commonly referred to Himself as "Son of Man", it's unlikely He ever actually referred to Himself as Son of God.
The term "son of God" has more than one meaning. To suggest it always means the one thing is a simplistic way of reading Scripture.
It refers in some places to the people of Israel. It refers in some places to angelic beings. It refers in some places to kings.
Jesus may or may not have referred to himself as the son of God. He did call himself a son of man. Probably a reference to Ezekiel either as a man or a priest.
The Pharisees understood these different terms for the Son of God, but they also allowed it to refer to divinity.
Jesus was a Jew. He was not an angelic being. He was a son of David, and potentially a king of the Jews. Yet the nation of Israel never crowned him even if God anointed him as king and as his Son at his baptism. At his baptism, God the Father revealed Jesus as his son. Whereas the prophet John the Baptist, who also was a Levite (probably a priest although this is inferred not testified to) anointed him with water, and the Spirit of God, descended upon him. Hence, Father, Son and Holy Spirit witnessed this inferred anointing as priest and king. A sweet and unusual combination of priest and king, Levite and Judahite together.
Jesus on numerous occasions did refer to himself as God. the I AM statements of John are obvious statements of this. The fact that he forgave sins was another. The testimony of the gospels also testify. And why is it he NEVER denied it either?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
1 Corinthians
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.9 Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.i mean you can say speaking in tongues isn't for modern man, but the most straightforward interpretation is that the bible would indicate it is. dont you think?
Well, I suppose if you ignore the context of the passage you quoted, and gee, ignored other parts of the bible which say that it is temporary, well I suppose you can think anything can't you?
Why did the OT say that tongues would occur? and has that been fulfilled? And what is the straightforward understanding of 1 Corinthians 13:8? Why would Paul bother raising the idea that tongues would cease IF it doesn't actually cease? His point in that section is about the enduring power of love. Yet he refers to tongues, wisdom and prophecy. Obviously, these are related - but how? The common factor is "revelation". Why is it important to mention they will cease at all?
Now it is true that many commentators suggest that the perfect is the second coming. But many others say it is the completion of the Scriptures and of fresh revelation. Charismatics and Pentecostals, have to hold to the former view, otherwise, it proves their position is a sham. Pressies are able to hold both views for obvious reasons.
For me, tongues are clearly something that occurred within the early church. Yet, Paul also clearly says that they will cease. The question is when will it happen and for what purpose does it cease? The context demands that it is within history. Not just because the world ends. So if within history, when in history? Most Pentecostals would never bother asking this question, because it simply wouldn't occur to them to ask it. Yet if the second coming can't be the reason for the ceasing of tongues, then what event or purpose in history might it fit?
I suppose one might raise the argument that since it is connected to the Holy Spirit, that a cessation might signal that God is no longer interested in the world and has withdrawn his Spirit and therefore tongues. This would signal that the world is about to end anyway.
What other events or purposes are there for us to consider? The OT suggests that when people hear people preaching to them in strange tongues, it is a sign of judgment. Perhaps the Jews completed their judgment at the end of AD 70, then there would be no need for tongues. One might respectfully ask how judgment on the Jews brings about the perfect? And what would be the perfect in that situation?
It is also important to note the word "cease" in 1 Corinthians 13:8 is in the Middle voice. In English we have active and passive. The boy kicked the ball. The boy was kicked by the horse. Yet the Greek has middle which is quite distinct. Here the verse intimates that - it ceases for itself. Why would it cease for itself? Because it has fulfilled its purpose and no longer is necessary.
Me, I suggest that it ceases for itself - because revelation has ceased. Like prophecy, and wisdom ( a spiritual gift and not wisdom as we often talk about in life) it no longer is necessary. As Paul puts it - when the perfect comes, we put aside the imperfect. What is subjectively known is now objective. We can read it with our own eyes. We no longer are like children, but are grown up as adults with proper food. We don't have to look in a dark glass dimly. What is a glass? In those times, there was the idea of telling the future. Gods looking down on the earth like a glass. A clear reference to revelation.
Yet now - Paul is saying - keep loving each other - don't stop loving each other. God will soon give us full disclosure, stop worrying about the future. Love - and love love. Don't get caught up with petty jealousies - wanting what everyone else has. Gifts are temporary - but love - goes on forever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You asked me what my view was:
So where exactly do you stand on the issue. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9056/posts/381101
So what is the point of reiterating that it was personal or subjective? Of course, it is - as based on my beliefs. It was neither frustrating nor a dig. I was simply putting it as it is.
The Bible - indicates that people who do not have the Spirit of Life in them are dead souls. Ephesians 1 flows on from the notion that God told Adam he would surely die on the day he ate the fruit - what Christians call the original sin - for humanity and which plunged them all into the estate of death.
This is objective Christian doctrine and understanding from the Scriptures. Many people - have come to the same conclusion. It's not just subjective - it has merit and is a valid objective reading.
You have made it clear on many occasions that you are an atheist. Hence, I am not clear as to why you call this a dig or even frustrated. That really makes no sense. given your previous comments.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
nonsense, you are strecthing the word into a context that it doesnt suggest.you cant stretching the meaning of a word beyond the context presented. and the passage there isnt talking about stewartship, its talking about the earth waiting for the sons of God to manifest. period.now, if you want to talk about stewartship of the saints, you have to go to a different passage such as revelation 20:6.is english your first language by the way? or do you have a problem with exegeting scripture with this type of methodology in general?
Gotta love your rudeness. the context clearly allows this understanding. You might not like it. I don't know why in particular. Yet, the commentaries allow it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
you seem to be brain washed, who taught you these lies that you so brazenly declare?
Well let's assume I am brainwashed, how about you prove some of your assertions from the scriptures.
Then we can have a proper discussion rather than you just name-calling or casting aspersions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
scripture asserts that the holy spirit is evidenced by speaking in other tongues.
No, the Scriptures do not assert this at all. Don't put your church traditions on me.
dont assert my view of godhead just because i said "it" and not "he"
Do you think the Spirit is a person or an it?
also, you dont get to determine what tongues is, how can you discern the holy spirit if you dont have it inside you to give the gift of discernment?
Of course, I don't get to determine it. The Bible very clearly defines it. And don't be so rude. I do have the Spirit inside me. I already indicated that to be the case. You shouldn't make assumptions about me.
it is very clear from scriptural view point that the millenium shows the saints ruling and reining with christ. Christ will return in this century. when? idk, but the signs point to his soon return according to matthew 24 and other verses.
I agree that the Millenium is the period between the first and second advent. The period we are living in right now. Christ is ruling right now. But will he return this century? That is a matter for God. It doesn't specifically tell us in the bible. In fact, it says the reverse. Don't seek the time nor the hour.
Matthew 24: 1- 35 has already been fulfilled and refers predominantly to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 67-70. From v. 36 forward talks about the second coming.
Again i say, You need to recieve the holy spirit soon, you have no seal of salvation without it. ephesians 4:30
I repeat that you are talking nonsense. Not in relation to the Spirit of God, but towards me. I have the Spirit. I cannot be a Christian without the Spirit. He sealed me the moment I was born again and justified. Tongues is not THE evidence of being filled with the Spirit of God. Are you a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
so thats a no.you need to get it while you can, Jesus is coming back soon.
The Holy Spirit is not an it. He is a person. The third person of the Trinity.
Are you a Mormon or a JW?
I do have the Spirit. No question about this at all. I don't speak in tongues - And nobody else does today as far as I am aware. Yes, I've heard people make noises. But that is not tongues.
Jesus will come back when he is ready to do so. Not before so. I hold to a post-mill point of view - so I personally think it won't be for a long time yet. But that is his prerogative, not mine.
Cheers and blessings to you.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
the sons of God appear - and take responsibility in their new life, this is called stewardship. What humanity was called to do from the beginning.
It goes without saying, I would've thought, that when people become Christians, that they take on board, what that means, and live to please God.
This would please the earth surely? When Christians live in accordance with the will of God, the earth is blessed.
Appearing in this sense - as manifestation assumes, is "taking responsibility". It is not its only intention, but it can't be dismissed or excluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A perfect example of personal interpretation.As was mine.
Do you know the difference between personal and objective? Personal or subjective is when I come to a conclusion nobody else does. Objective is when the conclusion I come to is the same as many other people. The fact that we can come to the same conclusion is evidence that a process was used which is objective.
Though mine was based upon the fairly certain knowledge that we are composed of the stuff of the Universe, and that one day soon, our mass will breakdown and it's parts will return to the universe.
Your view is objective as well. It doesn't make it right, nor wrong. You base it upon what you know but exclude what you don't know. In one sense it is working with the evidence and seeing where it leads, but in another sense it smacks of arrogance and pride.
Makes sense I think.
For some.
Though, I still think that the general theist/christian interpretation clings on to the notion of some sort of residual immortality that possesses awareness.
I agree that many Christians hold to the view of residual immortality. This is the remnant of Augustine's influence, it is not Jewish though in particular. I believed it as I was growing up, but it made less and less sense, so I have put it to one side whilst the explore some of the ancient grounds for it.
Which in some aspects could be interpreted as the same as my notion.....But with an awareness bit added on for peace of mind..
Perhaps - but I don't think I will give you that just yet. Peace of mind is not part of your notion.
So where exactly do you stand on the issue.Do we actually agree?No afterlife awareness.
I don't believe that God created humans immortal. Nor do I think that God created angels immortal. Yet I do believe that God created humans and angels with the promise of immortality.
Afterlife is a vague notion. I certainly hold to the view that our time here on earth is one aspect of life. Yet I also hold to the view of heaven. Currently, I also hold to the view of Hell. Although I am weighing up the evidence in respect of whether Hell is eternal for humans or not. I tend to think that it can't be eternal for humans since immortality is not given to all. And certainly not to those who resist God.
Albeit, your living soul is a bit more spiritual than mine.
I would say that my soul is alive while yours is dead. No offence, but the Spirit has not yet given you life which is one reason why the Spiritual can't make sense to you.
You are a soul - but a dead soul. That means once you die physically, you die or sleep until the resurrection. At which point you will be judged for your life. Hopefully, you can persuade the judge, your life deserves more than to be destroyed completely. I, on the other hand, don't need to do any persuading, since Jesus will be my lawyer.
Not that I don't run with the idea that internal electro-chemical processes can produce what might be described as a sensation of spirituality.
Truly, you are at least consistent with your views and seek to understand. I can respect that. I don't have to agree. Yet, given your state of existence, it makes sense to me that you might process it this way.
Created: