Why I am not a theological liberal.

[OzSpen]

Please keep in mind the Terms of Service, stating:

Grant others the courtesy to be understood and acknowledge their views. As best as one is capable, speak truth in love.

If one person believes they have answered the question but the one who asked the question believes that the question hasn't been answered, then it is clear that the love is not prevailing.

Serving Zion,

Have I been violating these Terms of Service? If so, would you please direct me to where I have done this?

Oz

 

[Walpole]

The table of contents in any Bible is not inspired. They certainly help, but they are not inspired.

Exactly. The table of contents contains the books the Church decided upon.

No, the early church, the Christians were already were using and reading in their assemblies certain letters and books they knew to be inspired by God. Each book of the New Testament carries it's own authority of inspiriation from God. They would always be the ones that made their way into the canon.

The Church decided which books would the canon. In fact, the only reason why the "New Testament" is called the "New Testament" is because those books (along with accounts and memorials of the martyrs and saints) were used during the Eucharistic liturgy, which is what our Blessed Lord calls the "New Testament."

I don't trust the Roman Church to determine the books. Ergo, their violation of adding books to the Old Testament. Luther could no more remove a book from the canon then you or I. There were several books that some people didn't like for various reasons. But, it didn't matter because the books carried their own authority from God. And they could not be denied.

If your New Testament has the same 27 books (in the same order no less!) as the Church's, then you are trusting the Roman Church to determine the books. It was the Church's authority which you borrowed...

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." - Canon 36 from the Third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D. ( <-- See that date???)

---> Four books of Kings = First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings
---> Paraleipomena = Chronicles
---> Five books of Solomon = Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus
---> Two books of Esdras = Ezra and Nehemiah
---> Jeremiah = Included the book of Baruch, which was not separated out until later (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe)

This same canon was affirmed repeatedly by the Church at the Council of Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, then affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

There is NO canon in all of Church history which matches the Protestant 66-book canon. It was completely made up by the Protestants. It is novel. And, were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books! Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

Once again, what Protestants did was grab the Catholic Scriptures, accept some of it as true, and then try to tell them by THEIR OWN BOOK that they are wrong. It's an absurdity. At least the Mormons were creative enough to come up with a crazy story!

No. You accept your explanation of my answer. I answered your question. According to Scripture. Both Luther and Southern Baptist's are correct. Just because you assume one is wrong, doesn't make it so. Hence the weakness of your riddle. Find another.

Quantrill

There is no riddle. It is a theological question dealing with salvation. One denomination using the Protestant tradition of sola Scriptura teaches baptism saves. Another denomination also using the Protestant tradition of sola Scriptura teaches baptism does not save. Both cannot be correct.

A thing cannot both be and not be. This is Logic 101.

 

[Walpole]

The answer is yes.
You are obviously confused as to which manner of biblical baptism is being referenced in each instance .
There are two types of Baptism referenced in scripture, and only one of those referenced in scripture is said to be superior to the other in having the power to save in and of itself .
This is the baptism by the Holy Ghost and by fire that John referenced as to being the real deal :

" ......He shall Baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire ( Luke 3:16 )

There is only ONE baptism...

Ephesians 4:5-6 ---> One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

One of the most important creeds in Christianity even states, "I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."

The only denomination I have ever heard claim that inferior water baptism had the ability to save was Roman Catholicism .
Fairly straightforward mystery to solve for yourself when you do more than just nibble around the theological edges .
Lutheran church I attend teaches the Baptism by this Jesus who is the Christ is the only Baptism that Saves :
" ......He shall Baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire
And this baptism can only come through belief.
Baptism by water only takes place post- public confession of the baptism by fire & Holy Ghost having occurred .

Most Christians believe baptism is salvific, including Lutherans. It wasn't until the anabaptists arrived on the scene did some Christians then reject baptism as being salvific.

The Scripture explicitly states baptism saves. Here is St. Peter...

"...because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." (1 Peter 3:20-22)


As St. Peter says, baptism is the anti-type of the waters of the deluge. The waters of baptism now cleanse not our flesh, but our sin. (cf. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5) Hence its effect is not on our flesh (i.e. removal of dirt), but rather on our interior. Through our baptism, we are made anew. (cf. John 3:5, Romans 6:4)

Water in salvation history brings both death and life. It represents the destruction of the old (former ways) and recreates something new. The waters of the deluge washed the sinners away, and through it something new was created. Thus St. Peter tells us Noah and the other seven were saved through water.


St. Paul tells us Moses and the Israelites were baptized "...in the cloud and in the sea" (cf. 1 Cor 10:2). As with the deluge, water brought forth death and life. What the Jews call the miracle of the parting of the Sea, St. Paul calls a baptism. This is a type of Christian baptism, with the cloud representing the spirit and the sea representing the living waters of baptism.

In Christianity, matter matters. Hence the waters of baptism are not symbolic, but actual living water...


---> "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Mt. 28:19)

In the above instruction on administering baptism, when is this formula ever recited sans water?


Here's a great video addressing the anabaptist objection to the necessity of baptism by the folks over at Lutheran Satire...

 

[Serving Zion]

Serving Zion,

Have I been violating these Terms of Service? If so, would you please direct me to where I have done this?

Oz

Hello OzSpen, thanks for asking! I have not noticed any violations of the ToS by you. Nice to see you, please continue to contribute quality material

 

[Consecrated Life]

There is only ONE baptism...

Ephesians 4:5-6 ---> One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

This is the baptism of Fire & the Holy Ghost coming from the Savior & spoken of by John the Baptist which he identified as being superior to his baptism.
And it is the only, "one baptism" that can save .
Comparing the Baptism of John to the Baptism of Jesus Christ is comparing apples to oranges . John specifically stated the superiority of it :

" ......He shall Baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire ( Luke 3:16 )"

Do you understand why John said the baptism of Fire & the Holy Ghost was superior to his baptism ?

 

[OzSpen]

Hello OzSpen, thanks for asking! I have not noticed any violations of the ToS by you. Nice to see you, please continue to contribute quality material

Serving Zion,

It is nice to see a Moderator on this forum from "across the ditch" in NZ.

Oz

 

[Quantrill]

Exactly. The table of contents contains the books the Church decided upon.

The Church decided which books would the canon. In fact, the only reason why the "New Testament" is called the "New Testament" is because those books (along with accounts and memorials of the martyrs and saints) were used during the Eucharistic liturgy, which is what our Blessed Lord calls the "New Testament."

If your New Testament has the same 27 books (in the same order no less!) as the Church's, then you are trusting the Roman Church to determine the books. It was the Church's authority which you borrowed...

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." - Canon 36 from the Third Council of Carthage, 397 A.D. ( <-- See that date???)

---> Four books of Kings = First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings
---> Paraleipomena = Chronicles
---> Five books of Solomon = Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus
---> Two books of Esdras = Ezra and Nehemiah
---> Jeremiah = Included the book of Baruch, which was not separated out until later (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe)

This same canon was affirmed repeatedly by the Church at the Council of Rome, affirmed by Damasus, Innocent, Galasius, the Fathers at Florence, then declared dogmatically at Trent when the Protestants began removing books from the canon, then affirmed yet again at Vatican I.

There is NO canon in all of Church history which matches the Protestant 66-book canon. It was completely made up by the Protestants. It is novel. And, were it not for Luther's former chancellor Andreas Karlstadt, you would have even fewer books! Luther wanted to take his scalpel to the New Testament canon as well, removing books he did not like such as the epistle of James and St. John's Apocalypse.

Once again, what Protestants did was grab the Catholic Scriptures, accept some of it as true, and then try to tell them by THEIR OWN BOOK that they are wrong. It's an absurdity. At least the Mormons were creative enough to come up with a crazy story!



There is no riddle. It is a theological question dealing with salvation. One denomination using the Protestant tradition of sola Scriptura teaches baptism saves. Another denomination also using the Protestant tradition of sola Scriptura teaches baptism does not save. Both cannot be correct.

A thing cannot both be and not be. This is Logic 101.

As I said, the table of contents is not inspired in any Bible.

When you say 'the church decided', I can agree. As the Church is made up of all born-again believers. When you say 'the Catholic Church decided', I can agree. As the Catholic Church is the Universal Church of Jesus Christ made up of all born-again believers. But when you say or identify the 'Roman church' as the Catholic Church, I disagree. The Roman church made no books of the Bible authoritative or inspired. In other words, the Roman church does not represent the Catholic church. This defining of the word 'church' is important. So, no, I do not trust any decision coming from the Roman church.

The third council of Carthage or any other council of Carthage does not represent the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Any local body can meet and make decisions all it wants for itself. And it can be wrong in it's decisions also. Just as this council was in error in adding the apocrypha to the Old Testament. Just as Augustine was in error in doing the same. Just as Rome would be in error at the council of Trent in doing the same.

Protestants didn't remove any books from the canon. The apocrypha were always apocrypha, meaning of doubtful authenticity. Romes referring to these as 'Deuterocanonical' doesn't change that they were always under suspicion. For good reason. They are not inspired by God.

Of course the 66 Books of the Bible are novel. They are the only written Word of God on earth.

The Church has no say as to the Old Testament canon. It was already established by Israel, the Jews in Palestine. It is the exact same as the Protestant Old Testament.

The inspired letters or books of the New Testament were collected and passed around to various churches from the very beginning of their writing. (1 Thess. 5:27) (Rev. 1:3) (Rev. 1:11) (Col. 4:16) (2 Peter 3:15-16) No Roman church decided which of these were inspired and authoritative. They simply recognized what had already been decided and accepted among believers.

Logic 101 doesn't teach you are right just because you present a riddle. You err in assuming one is right and one is wrong. I have told you that both are correct in their view of baptism, according to Scripture. If you disagree then show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill

 

[Serving Zion]

[ACMP=warning]

Logic 101 doesn't teach you are right just because you present a riddle. You err in assuming one is right and one is wrong. I have told you that both are correct in their view of baptism, according to Scripture. If you disagree then show me where I am wrong.

Quantrill, because you have been warned about continuing the argument in spite of being against the ToS, I want to help you to understand why the two of you are having this disagreement.

You have shifted the goalposts in post #149. You did not read Walpole's question carefully enough and you have not given a direct answer to his question. Instead you have been answering a question that he hasn't asked.

Walpole has shown you in posts #145 and #147 that one party has said "baptism saves" while another party has said "baptism does not save". He is asking you to explain how they can both be right when they are saying such opposite things.

If you continue to say that he is being cunning and presenting a riddle while refusing to answer such a clear question, it will amount to goading and trolling. You owe him an answer to his question otherwise let go of it. This is the final warning on this matter.
[/ACMP]

 

[JLB]

There is only ONE baptism...

There are three distinct and different baptisms mentioned in scripture.


There is the baptism into Christ by the Spirit. This occurs when we are born again.

• The Spirit is the Baptizer.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13



Then there is the baptism in water, which is done by a person.

• man is the baptizer.

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5


Finally there is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, in which we receive power to be His witness.

• Jesus is the Baptizer.

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8



The three baptism are typified in the Old Testament and taught by Paul in the New Testament.


Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

• all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

JLB

 

[Consecrated Life]

There are three distinct and different baptisms mentioned in scripture.


There is the baptism into Christ by the Spirit. This occurs when we are born again.

• The Spirit is the Baptizer.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13



Then there is the baptism in water, which is done by a person.

• man is the baptizer.

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5


Finally there is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, in which we receive power to be His witness.

• Jesus is the Baptizer.

for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Mark 1:8



The three baptism are typified in the Old Testament and taught by Paul in the New Testament.


Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2

• all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

JLB

By the Chronology of " distinct" separate baptisms you give , You seem to be implying that the indwelling of of the Holy Spirit is a separate occurrence that takes place at a "distinct" time apart from the moment one is born again ?
Are you saying these two baptisms happen at two " distinct " separate moments in time ?
Exactly how much of an interval in time then are you saying there is between the moment of new birth & and this third baptism of the Holy Spirit you mention ?
For me, the ministry of the Holy Spirit was an immediate awareness at the moment Christ came into my heart .
I have never heard another Christian say they experienced them at two " distinct" separate moments ,

" Holy Spirit , faithful Guide , ever near the Christian's side ."

 

[JLB]

By the Chronology of " distinct" separate baptisms you give , You seem to be implying that the indwelling of of the Holy Spirit is a separate occurrence that takes place at a "distinct" time apart from the moment one is born again ?

How so?


Here is what I posted —


There is the baptism into Christ by the Spirit. This occurs when we are born again.

• The Spirit is the Baptizer.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13



I think the phrase “made to drink into one Spirit” is sufficient to say we all are joined in one Spirit in Christ.





JLB

 

[Consecrated Life]

How so?


Here is what I posted —


There is the baptism into Christ by the Spirit. This occurs when we are born again.

• The Spirit is the Baptizer.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13



I think the phrase “made to drink into one Spirit” is sufficient to say we all are joined in one Spirit in Christ.





JLB

Then in speaking of " three" baptism's you are talking about something that only applied to those present in the room on the day of Pentecost .
Jesus citing the Pentecost in Acts 1:5 , and Paul is citing the new birth in post-Pentecost in Corinthians 12:13 .
This " baptism" that you cite that Jesus references In Acts 1:5 is the Holy Spirit coming to earth on the day of Pentecost .
A completely unique and one time event and applicable as a separate event only to the apostles present on that day of Pentecost.
Unless you were present on the day of Pentecost with the disciples this has no application to you .
" for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5"

The Holy Spirit has been present on earth since that day, & today we do not go through a " distinct " & separate Pentecost experience apart from the New birth which is what Jesus is referring to in Acts .
It has been streamlined for our purposes .
We get the indwelling all in a one shot baptism , Jesus & the Holy Ghost .
In fact it is the pro-active presence of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God that brings about the new birth for our purposes .
The process has literally been flipped for us on this side of the day of Pentecost, thanks to the Holy Spirit's active presence on earth .
Something the disciples did not have the benefit of .
The disciples being eyewitnesses to the presence & works of Jesus Christ in their midst bringing them to belief, apart from the Holy Spirit's presence, which came after, while we have the Holy Spirit pro-actively bringing people to belief prior to the actual moment of New Birth- baptism.

 

[JLB]

Then in speaking of " three" baptism's you are talking about something that only applied to those present in the room on the day of Pentecost .

Paul was addressing the Church in Corinth, some twenty years after Pentecost.


These three baptisms apply to the Church.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Number of Baptisms - my 2 cents worth .....

Baptism, Eight in all​

Baptize means to be initiated, identified with.

Christ’s Three Baptisms
Baptisms are the bringing of the subject into a baptized estate by means of a baptizing agent, whether it be by the Holy Spirit, a cup, the cloud and the sea, or water.

Concerning Christ’s water baptism
It may be concluded that Christ, though of the tribe of Judah and not therefore to be recognized as a Priest by any high priest, is nevertheless the consummating Priest, and that He, in compliance with the law which Jehovah established, was consecrated or ordained to the priestly office, and, in doing so, He, whose earth-life was lived under the law and who perfectly observed the law, fulfilled all righteousness in the respect that He was duly set apart to the priestly office. He who was disqualified according to the rules imposed upon the high priest as to who might be ordained to priesthood, was ordained by God’s appointed priest and prophet of whom Christ Himself said, “a prophet … and more than a prophet,” and among those born of women no greater than John had arisen (Matthew 11:9,11). No more vital thing could be done in preparing the way of Jehovah-Messiah (cf. Isaiah 40:3, John 1:23) than that the legal dedication of the Priest above all priest should be accomplished.

Matthew 3:14 But John protested strenuously, having in mind to prevent Him, saying, It is I who have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me? 15 But Jesus replied to him, Permit it just now; for this is the fitting way for [both of] us to fulfill all righteousness [that is, to perform completely whatever is right]. Then he permitted Him. And Paul said quite explicitly, Romans 5:19 For just as by one man’s disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man’s obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him). So we can see that that is one facet of Christ’s “active obedience” that leads to our imputed righteousness and thus Christ was obliged to obey God

Concerning Christ’s Baptism by the Holy Spirit
John 1:32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

Concerning the CUP Baptism of Christ
(Matthew 20:22; Luke 12:50) Mark 10:38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, There is general agreement that the cup represents penal death—John 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (Matthew 26:39; 42; Luke 22:42)

John the Baptist’s Baptism​

John 1:31 I [John the Baptist] myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” [Thus the baptism is identifying Christ as the Messiah] (See Acts 19:1-6 where John the Baptist’s disciples are baptized again upon which they received the Holy Spirit) This appears to be the baptism of repentance.
Matthew 3:11; Acts 13:24; Luke 1:16 and Luke 1:80.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit​

What is termed the baptism by the Spirit is His mighty undertaking by which He joins the individual believer to Christ’s Body and thus to Christ Himself as the Head of the Body. Because of this great achievement on the part of the Spirit, the believer is from that moment in Christ and is thus brought under the influence of His Headship. No influence could be more transforming, more purifying relative to position, or more vital in its outworking than that engendered by a removal from the fallen headship of Adam into the exalted Headship of Christ. See baptism of the Holy Spirit

Water Baptism of Believer’s​

Reason to be Baptized by Water
Christ was baptized (Matthew 3:16)
The Lord approved of His disciples baptizing (John 4:1-2)
Christ commanded that people be baptized in this age (Matthew 28:19)
The early church gave an important place to baptism (Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12-13, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5)
The New Testament used the ordinance to picture or symbolize important theological truths (Romans 6:1-10; Galatians 3:27; 1 Peter 3:21)
The writer of Hebrews termed baptism a foundational truth (Hebrews 6:1-2)

Baptism by Fire​

Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.”

Some interpret the baptism of fire as referring to the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them” (Acts 2:2-3). It is important to note that these were tongues as of fire, not literal fire.

Some believe that the baptism with fire refers to the Holy Spirit’s office as the energizer of the believer’s service, and the purifier of evil within, because of the exhortation “Do not quench the Spirit” found in 1 Thessalonians 5:19. The command to the believer is to not put out the Spirit’s fire by suppressing His ministry.

A third and more likely interpretation is that the baptism of fire refers to judgment. The locations where “fire” in relationship to all believers is biblically found is at the Bema seat of Christ. It is probable that the “fire” spoken of in this verse and Luke 3:16 is at the judgment seat of Christ where His eyes of fire (Revelation 1:14) will burn away all the dross and only that which is heavenly will abide. 1 Corinthians 3:9-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10

Author Unknown

 

[for_his_glory]

God spoke it, Jesus taught what God gave Him to speak and do, God gave to the Prophets and Apostles to write, and God gave us His Holy Spirit of truth to teach us and that's good enough for me. There is nothing outside of scripture other then the study of history and culture of the various eras the 66 books contain. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Need not reply to the below scriptures, but to think and meditate on them.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

2Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

[for_his_glory]

[ACMP=warning]
A Friendly reminder has been posted and a warning given, but yet some refuse to abide. I believe OzSpen has proven his article to be true as here is the first part of what he wrote.

When I lived in Bundaberg, Rev. David Kidd was the Uniting Church minister who wrote an article at Easter time 1999 in The Bugle, Bundaberg, Qld, a local freebie newspaper that was titled, "The Resurrection of Jesus." In it, he stated: 'The resurrection of Jesus. It's impossible. Even our brain dies after a few minutes of death. It's just not possible'.

This is a characteristic example of what a person's theological liberalism does to the Bible, by denying the supernatural and imposing a naturalistic, individualistic interpretation on the text. It is called eisegesis – imposing one's own meaning on the text instead of allowing the text to speak for itself and for meaning to be obtained from the words of the text (exegesis).

This is the first part of the article OzSpen has written in his article and speaking about "destructive heresies. Reading through this thread I see the destruction that is happening between the members here. If we can not speak to each other in love, as we are to lift up and edify one another, even if we do not always agree with each other, then this thread will be closed.

Many violations have been presented by some of the members in violation of the ToS 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.4. Please go back and read them plus the Community Message.

No need to reply.
[/ACMP]

 

[jaybo]

A Friendly reminder has been posted and a warning given, but yet some refuse to abide. I believe OzSpen has proven his article to be true as here is the first part of what he wrote.

When I lived in Bundaberg, Rev. David Kidd was the Uniting Church minister who wrote an article at Easter time 1999 in The Bugle, Bundaberg, Qld, a local freebie newspaper that was titled, "The Resurrection of Jesus." In it, he stated: 'The resurrection of Jesus. It's impossible. Even our brain dies after a few minutes of death. It's just not possible'.

This is a characteristic example of what a person's theological liberalism does to the Bible, by denying the supernatural and imposing a naturalistic, individualistic interpretation on the text. It is called eisegesis – imposing one's own meaning on the text instead of allowing the text to speak for itself and for meaning to be obtained from the words of the text (exegesis).

This is the first part of the article OzSpen has written in his article and speaking about "destructive heresies. Reading through this thread I see the destruction that is happening between the members here. If we can not speak to each other in love, as we are to lift up and edify one another, even if we do not always agree with each other, then this thread will be closed.

Many violations have been presented by some of the members in violation of the ToS 1.1, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.4. Please go back and read them plus the Community Message.

No need to reply.

Eisegesis and theological liberalism are two entirely different things. One is based on one's erroneous personal interpretation of Scripture, the other is applying knowledge and reasoning to correct errors of conservative doctrine.

 

[for_his_glory]

Eisegesis and theological liberalism are two entirely different things. One is based on one's erroneous personal interpretation of Scripture, the other is applying knowledge and reasoning to correct errors of conservative doctrine.

What does this have to do with the warning I just gave. If you continue with this action you will be removed from the thread.

 

[Serving Zion]

What does this have to do with the warning I just gave.

I think he is just saying that there is discussion to be had around the difference between Eisegesis and Theological Liberalism and that he seems to accept the validity of the OP's comment which you quoted but that it does not mean to say that Theological Liberalism is invalid.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology, is a movement that interprets and reforms Christian teaching by taking into consideration modern knowledge, science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority. Liberal Christians view their theology as an alternative to both atheistic rationalism and theologies based on traditional interpretations of external authority (such as the Bible or sacred tradition).

Liberal theology grew out of Enlightenment rationalism and romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was characterized by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, a utilization of modern biblical criticism and participation in the Social Gospel movement. This was also the period when liberal theology was most dominant within the Protestant churches.

In the context of theology, the word liberal does not refer to political liberalism, and it should be distinguished from progressive Christianity. Historically, liberal Christianity has also been referred to as Christian modernism.
https://christianforums.net/threads/why-i-am-not-a-theological-liberal.88104/page-11#post-1642245

Now for the specifics:
In liberal Christian teaching man’s reason is stressed and is treated as the final authority. Liberal theologians seek to reconcile Christianity with secular science and modern thinking. In doing so, they treat science as all-knowing and the Bible as fable-laden and false. Genesis’ early chapters are reduced to poetry or fantasy, having a message, but not to be taken literally (in spite of Jesus’ having spoken of those early chapters in literal terms). Mankind is not seen as totally depraved, and thus liberal theologians have an optimistic view of the future of mankind. The social gospel is also emphasized, while the inability of fallen man to fulfill it is denied. Whether a person is saved from his sin and its penalty in hell is no longer the issue; the main thing is how man treats his fellow man. “Love” of our fellow man becomes the defining issue. As a result of this “reasoning” by liberal theologians, the following doctrines are taught by liberal quasi-Christian theologians:

1) The Bible is not “God-breathed” and has errors. Because of this belief, man (the liberal theologians) must determine which teachings are correct and which are not. Belief that the Bible is “inspired” (in that word’s original meaning) by God is only held by simpletons. This directly contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

2) The virgin birth of Christ is a mythological false teaching. This directly contradicts Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 2.

3) Jesus did not rise again from the grave in bodily form. This contradicts the resurrection accounts in all four Gospels and the entire New Testament.

4) Jesus was a good moral teacher, but His followers and their followers have taken liberties with the history of His life (there were no “supernatural” miracles), with the Gospels having been written many years later and merely ascribed to the early disciples in order to give greater weight to their teachings. This contradicts the 2 Timothy passage and the doctrine of the supernatural preservation of the Scriptures by God.

5) Hell is not real. Man is not lost in sin and is not doomed to some future judgment without a relationship with Christ through faith. Man can help himself; no sacrificial death by Christ is necessary since a loving God would not send people to such a place as hell and since man is not born in sin. This contradicts Jesus Himself, who declared Himself to be the Way to God, through His atoning death (John 14:6).

6) Most of the human authors of the Bible are not who they are traditionally believed to be. For instance, they believe that Moses did not write the first five books of the Bible. The book of Daniel had two authors because there is no way that the detailed “prophecies” of the later chapters could have been known ahead of time; they must have been written after the fact. The same thinking is carried over to the New Testament books. These ideas contradict not only the Scriptures but historical documents which verify the existence of all the people whom the liberals deny.

7) The most important thing for man to do is to “love” his neighbor. What is the loving thing to do in any situation is not what the Bible says is good but what the liberal theologians decide is good. This denies the doctrine of total depravity, which states that man is incapable of doing anything good and loving (Jeremiah 17:9) until He has been redeemed by Christ and given a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17).

There are many pronouncements of Scripture against those who would deny the deity of Christ (2 Peter 2:1)—which liberal Christianity does. Scripture also denounces those who would preach a different gospel from what was preached by the apostles (Galatians 1:8)—which is what the liberal theologians do in denying the necessity of Christ’s atoning death and preaching a social gospel in its place. The Bible condemns those who call good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20)—which some liberal churches do by embracing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle while the Bible repeatedly condemns its practice.

What is liberal Christian theology? | GotQuestions.org

What is liberal Christian theology? Why is liberal Christian theology so dangerous?

www.gotquestions.org