When Beliefs Conflict

[JLB]

If the baptized person goes on to live a life for God, they will indeed be saved.

Of course. If they “live a life for God” as you say.

Living a life for God would mean at some point they are regenerated or born again.

The flip side of that coin would be a person who is indeed born again, then baptized in water, then later they fall back into a life of sin and die in their sins.

• “The Lord knows those who are His,”
• “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
  

Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I may be wrong, it has happened before! But I think TD May have been referring to people who have been indoctrinated into questionable beliefs may be afraid to leave the belief system because they have been taught that if they do, they will go to hell. I know the Catholics used to teach only Catholics are saved, don't know if they still do. Mormons teach this and many cults.

Yes, I did misunderstand tdidymas and I already spoke to him and apologized -- not that it was anything important...just a misunderstanding.

Of course I agree with you on your post above...
and just for your information, the catholic church DOES NOT teach that only catholics are saved...I could get you the CCC paragraph if it would help you. It might be 1271 but I'd like to check.

 

[JLB]

The bible states to be careful before teaching because God will hold US responsible for what is taught wrongly.
James 3:1

This is disturbing to learn....

Yes. Very sobering!

 

[Boaz]

Yes, I did misunderstand tdidymas and I already spoke to him and apologized -- not that it was anything important...just a misunderstanding.

Of course I agree with you on your post above...
and just for your information, the catholic church DOES NOT teach that only catholics are saved...I could get you the CCC paragraph if it would help you. It might be 1271 but I'd like to check.

I believe you! I didn't think they still taught that but wasn't sure.

 

[Boaz]

What will God do?
This brings up the questIon:
Will God forgive due to incorrect teachings???

If the baptized person goes on to live a life for God, they will indeed be saved.

But what if they have a false sense of security and THINK they are saved, when in reality they are not.

The bible states to be careful before teaching because God will hold US responsible for what is taught wrongly.
James 3:1

This is disturbing to learn....

If the baptized person believes that Jesus is the Son of God, son of man, that He came in the flesh, that He was sinless, that He died on the cross, was raised from the dead, ascended into Heaven, is a propitiation for those who believe, he is saved. Hopefully if he is in church where they baptize, he will have been taught that. If all they teach is that baptism saves, well it doesn't. But he will probably at some point hear the Gospel since God draws near to those with a sincere heart.

 

[GodsGrace]

If the baptized person believes that Jesus is the Son of God, son of man, that He came in the flesh, that He was sinless, that He died on the cross, was raised from the dead, ascended into Heaven, is a propitiation for those who believe, he is saved. Hopefully if he is in church where they baptize, he will have been taught that. If all they teach is that baptism saves, well it doesn't. But he will probably at some point hear the Gospel since God draws near to those with a sincere heart.

JLB wrote that some churches teach that baptism saves.
If a person is ONLY baptized but does not believe, he will not be saved.

I do believe that the three of us agree on this.
I was just stating that I was surprised to hear that some denominations teach that baptism saves...I'm sure there's more than one way to understand that.

1. Baptism alone saves with no further changes to the person.
2. A saved person MUST be baptized or be lost.

 

[JLB]

JLB wrote that some churches teach that baptism saves.
If a person is ONLY baptized but does not believe, he will not be saved.

I do believe that the three of us agree on this.
I was just stating that I was surprised to hear that some denominations teach that baptism saves...I'm sure there's more than one way to understand that.

1. Baptism alone saves with no further changes to the person.
2. A saved person MUST be baptized or be lost.

Here is a quote from Catholic publication



But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

What the Early Church Believed: Born Again in Baptism

The Catholic Church teaches that we are "born again" in baptism. No Church Fathers referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.

www.catholic.com

JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Here is a quote from Catholic publication



But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).

What the Early Church Believed: Born Again in Baptism

The Catholic Church teaches that we are "born again" in baptism. No Church Fathers referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.

www.catholic.com

JLB

The catholic church, to this day, teaches that John 3:5 is referring to water baptism. Since both baptism and natural birth can be supported, I've had a difficult time with this verse, as you know. I DO tend toward natural birth because of what Nicodemus asked Jesus about returning to the womb --- we've been through this before.

The catholic church teaches, however, that baptism ALONE does not save. If one is born a catholic and gets baptized as an infant, it is taught that at some point in his life he must "accept" his baptism.

Think of it,,,,if all catholics are baptized, does it mean they ALL go to heaven? No.

The ECFs believed that one must be baptized AFTER coming to believe in Christ.

Also, you listed Augustine....he should not even be on the list since it was HE that caused all infants to NECESSARILY be baptized...this did not exist in the church before him. (due to Original Sin).

You can check out The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraphs 2007 to about 2010 and maybe even beyond.

Also check out paragraph 1247 and on......

There's more but the above should be sufficient.

 

[JLB]

The catholic church, to this day, teaches that John 3:5 is referring to water baptism.

I wonder why water baptism?

If you think about it, it would make more sense to correlate the the new birth with the Spirit baptizing us into Christ, since it is the Spirit that gives birth to spirit.

Or, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Think about how a baby “lives” from the water that it is submerged in for 9 months, before it comes forth from the mother’s womb.

It is made “to drink” of that fluid of the mother’s “water sack” by which the baby is sustained and nourished during that time.


For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13

• and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

JLB

 

[Shekinahglory]

Someone told me that we are like blind villagers. An elephant is brought in and every gets a hold of the elephant. The guy with the leg is convinced it looks like a tree. the trunk is sure it is long and slender like an eel. Everyone was sure they had the right view.

it can get a little testy for the followers of the Prince of Peace.

 

[Who Me]

Someone told me that we are like blind villagers. An elephant is brought in and every gets a hold of the elephant. The guy with the leg is convinced it looks like a tree. the trunk is sure it is long and slender like an eel. Everyone was sure they had the right view.

it can get a little testy for the followers of the Prince of Peace.

One has to add two additional conditions to that story.
1. that the person telling the story is also blind and cannot tell what sort of creature has been brought in.
2. the elephants handler can see and he is discribing the animal to the blind villagers and the blind 'onlookers'.

Jesus came to a people expecting a messiah, they had the OT and prophercies.
Just as today we have the bible as well as the testimony of those who know Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

I wonder why water baptism?

If you think about it, it would make more sense to correlate the the new birth with the Spirit baptizing us into Christ, since it is the Spirit that gives birth to spirit.

Or, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Think about how a baby “lives” from the water that it is submerged in for 9 months, before it comes forth from the mother’s womb.

It is made “to drink” of that fluid of the mother’s “water sack” by which the baby is sustained and nourished during that time.


For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13

• and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

JLB

The CC believes we must be baptized to be saved. So they tend to see water baptism in everything. Sometimes they're right and sometimes I think they go a bit too far in interpreting scripture.

Personally, I believe John 3:5 is addressing the natural birth AND THEN the spiritual birth.

Jesus said we must be born AGAIN.....
why again?

If John 3:5 meant water baptism,,,then why would there be a need for a second birth? We would be born at the time of baptism...and would not require a second birth.

The CC also believes we must believe to be saved....
Every now and then they consider baptizing adults, but the change would be too drastic and would upset too many traditional catholics. The last time I heard of this was about 9 years ago.

 

[JLB]

Personally, I believe John 3:5 is addressing the natural birth AND THEN the spiritual birth.

I agree.

Jesus said so in the next verse.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree.

Jesus said so in the next verse.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:6

JLB

Right...and Nicodemus asked how he could climb back into his mother's womb.

I'd say those two verses make it clear what John 3:3,5 is speaking of...and then there are those that say it means the Word of God. I'd never even heard of this till I came to this forum. That I do not agree with at all.

 

[Berserk]

If you can, it is important to search the religious studies section of you local university library for academic commentaries on the biblical books which give rise to the dispute that concerns you. Lay people tend to be immersed in their church culture so deeply that they are unaware of what Bible scholars have to say on the verses in question. Deterjmining the scholarly consensus can serve as a useful upgrade and launching pad for your further theological reflection.

When I was advising college students on research paper topics, I would encourage them to play with alternate perspectives. For example, provisionally assume for the sake of argument that what you have always believed about a certain issue or verse is wrong and then ask what type of biblical evidence you would need to uncover to confirm your new hypothesis. On the internet you should feel free to play with new ideas without always feeling obligated to express your true beliefs. You might learn more that way. It is OK to occasionally play devil's advocate!

 

[GodsGrace]

If you can, it is important to search the religious studies section of you local university library for academic commentaries on the biblical books which give rise to the dispute that concerns you. Lay people tend to be immersed in their church culture so deeply that they are unaware of what Bible scholars have to say on the verses in question. Deterjmining the scholarly consensus can serve as a useful upgrade and launching pad for your further theological reflection.

When I was advising college students on research paper topics, I would encourage them to play with alternate perspectives. For example, provisionally assume for the sake of argument that what you have always believed about a certain issue or verse is wrong and then ask what type of biblical evidence you would need to uncover to confirm your new hypothesis. On the internet you should feel free to play with new ideas without always feeling obligated to express your true beliefs. You might learn more that way. It is OK to occasionally play devil's advocate!

Hi Berserk,
Welcome to the forum.

Your post above is very true indeed.
I was raised Catholic and did exactly what you advise before I decided to convert to Protestantism. There are still some practices I like about the Catholic church...and even the explanation for some theology is right on...but some doctrine I cannot agree with AFTER studying it a bit.

I do agree with you that we should know WHY we believe what we believe.

 

[stovebolts]

If you can, it is important to search the religious studies section of you local university library for academic commentaries on the biblical books which give rise to the dispute that concerns you. Lay people tend to be immersed in their church culture so deeply that they are unaware of what Bible scholars have to say on the verses in question. Deterjmining the scholarly consensus can serve as a useful upgrade and launching pad for your further theological reflection.

When I was advising college students on research paper topics, I would encourage them to play with alternate perspectives. For example, provisionally assume for the sake of argument that what you have always believed about a certain issue or verse is wrong and then ask what type of biblical evidence you would need to uncover to confirm your new hypothesis. On the internet you should feel free to play with new ideas without always feeling obligated to express your true beliefs. You might learn more that way. It is OK to occasionally play devil's advocate!

I was recently listening to Ray Vender Leen and in a passing comment to a student during a break in one of his lectures, he is asked about Nicodemus and being born again.

Rays response was quick and to the point, and it's something i want to look further into.

Per RVL, everytime a student opened Tanach, he was "born again". Thus, Nicodemous is looking for a new teaching from Jesus and Jesus basically tells him, " nope, nothing new here...."

Have you run across anything similar to RVL's comments?

 

[Atonement]

Anyone that has spent any amount of time on this or other forums has undoubtedly encourter if not been a part of doctrinal disagreements. These encounters oftentime do not go well and I was hoping to start a discussion related to ways to improve our discussion of disagreements.
So, what do we do when what someone believes doesn't jibe with what we've been taught? WHat's the best way to bring the 'disconnect' to people's attention? How can we go from the 'let me show you why you're wrong' attitude to the 'let me see what I may have missed' attitude when APPROACHING an area of dissent?

A valid question, one can only see the character of a man, and a watermelon if they are thumped. If a person gets thumped on here, their character comes forth. Rather or not a person says they are Christian or not. We are not to judge. But we will know them by their fruit. How long would it take any here to see an apple tree and make that judgement call that in fact, it's an apple tree?

Over the years we seen people grow and become more wise in their faith. We seen how once they replied to others but today, we see how they have grown (spiritually).
Those who are quick to reply in haste using sharp tongues, they don't uplift, gratify, or teach anyone. It just frustrates the readers. It's those individuals who require milk and a little more patience and compassion..

 

[Berserk]

Stove Bolts,

Your question about neglected aspects of Nicodemus's dialogue with Jesus is a crucial issue for the question of online biblical disagreements because the correct application of John raises at least 6 other issues that are not easy to resolve:

(1) Is Jesus' phrase "born of water and the Spirit" referring to baptism, amniotic birth fluid, or God's Word as living water? John's later reference to the testifying role of the Spirit and the water makes is clear that "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:3 includes an implicit reference to baptism:
"This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the blood...There are 3 that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these 3 agree (1 John 5:6-8)."

(2) If "born of water" refers to water baptism, then does Jesus teach baptismal regeneration in the Great Commission ("He who believes and is baptized will be saved --Mark 16:16)" and does Peter's phrase "baptism...now saves you (1 Peter 3:19)" teach the same doctrine?

(3) In debating such issues, it is important to keep in mind 2 spiritual dangers that are at stake in one's interpretation:
(a) the danger of reducing baptism to a magical ritual that is effective regardless of inner transformation or the lack of it;
(b) the loss of any sense of a life-changing "born again" experience, a loss that reduces being born again to a willingess to affirm correct doctrinal tenets--repentance, confession of sin, and mental adherence to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ's finished atonement on the cross.

(4) At this point academic commentaries can be very helpful:
(a) by pointing out that in both Hebrew ("amunah") and Greek ("pistis") the word translated "faith" also means "faithfulness," and so, saving faith involves a tacit pledge to be faithful without which that faith is not authentic;
(b) by pointing out that 1 Peter 3:21 should be translated thus:
"Baptism...now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as a pledge (Greek: "eperotema") to God from a good conscience." Doctrinal confusion is created by mistranslating "eperoteme" as "an appeal."

Thus, neither saving faith nor baptism is valid unless their role as an authentic pledge to God proves true. So if you were baptized as an infant, then it becomes important to participate in an later confirmation program during which you renew the baptismal vows made by your parennts when you were too young to make them for yourself.

(5) The essential role of a pledge in baptism and saving faith is also implicit in the application of the "seed" or "sperm" image in being born again:

"You have been born anew...of imperishable seed (Greek: "sperma") though the living and enduring word of God (1 Peter 3:23)."

The seed must grow into a mature plant and God's word must continue to live and endure as a transforming force in your heart for your salvation to be authentic.
So to be born again the new believer must become "a new creation" for whom "everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new (2 Corinthians 5:17)!"

(6) For many Evangelicals the term "mysticism" has New Age or eastern religious tones. This is unfortunate because Paul's theology is anchored to his "being in Christ" mysticism in which walking in the Spirit means being led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:25) in a mystically guided way, not in a mechanical way of trying to apply moral and spiritual principles to one's life!

 

[tdidymas]

Stove Bolts,

Your question about neglected aspects of Nicodemus's dialogue with Jesus is a crucial issue for the question of online biblical disagreements because the correct application of John raises at least 6 other issues that are not easy to resolve...

(Truncated)

I concur, and would like to add one more thing:

People generally get confused between cause and effect, such as the horse pulls the cart, the cart does not push the horse. Therefore, we do not push God to make us born again, but rather God pulls us into it.

In context, Jesus said "The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but do not know where it comes from or where it is going; so is everyone born of the Spirit." This shows that baptism is not where being born again comes from. It is merely the "sound" of it. When a person gets baptized (who has genuine faith), it is the result of God-granted wisdom and spiritual understanding, such that he obeys the gospel by being baptized (as a beginning of his walk).

The not knowing speaks of us not having control of being born again. It forces us to trust God for what we know must happen, but don't have control of when, where, or how. So genuine faith is trusting God for eternal life by means of the work of Christ, since God is the one doing the work of salvation.

Therefore, IMO Jesus did not mean "water and the Spirit" as a chronological list, where water comes first, then Spirit. Such an idea is imposed on the text and doesn't belong. God does His work in a person's heart and mind, then the person responds with baptism and obedience. Cause and effect - God is the cause, our actions the effect, or proof, of genuine faith.

So then, when Paul wrote "we maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the law," he was talking about the cause of justification. When James wrote "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone," he was talking about proof (effect) of genuine faith and justification.
TD