Numerical Growth Is Not A Sign Of Revival...

[shazeep]

no, but it does supercede them, as the evidence that they all ended in "love" demonstrated; and as several parables show. And as basically the whole OT shows.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

no, but it does supercede them, as the evidence that they all ended in "love" demonstrated; and as several parables show. And as basically the whole OT shows.

Love supercedes everything, but again that does not excuse one from obedience to what the apostles commanded for salvation.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree. But that does not remove the need for obedience to the apostles' teachings.

Ah yes the apostle’s teachings that you believe supersede the teachings of Christ. "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the son of Man be lifted up THAT WHO SOVER BELIEVETH in him shall not perish but have everlasting life".

If that is not a standalone statement of how faith works, I don't know what else to say. You say the plan of salvation is Acts 2:38, but where does Peter say that is what saves you? The question was, "what must we do" NOT what must we do to be saved? Peter already told them that calling on the name of the Lord is what would save them.

I have stated over and over that I believe baptism is symbolic, (it does not wash one’s sins away) "it is our answer of a clear conscious" (whether before God or man) It symbolizes our burial with Christ, It symbolizes our washing away of sins. Finally, it is a direct command of Christ. But is it the actual point in time when sins are washed away? No Paul refutes that in Romans 4. How can righteousness be imputed before baptism if our sins are not removed by faith? Or our sins are not removed until baptism.
See we seem to have a contradiction here, you quote Mark 16:16 to say baptism and believe, And I quote right back at you the words of Christ in John 3:14-15. John 3:14-15 would be the best example of death bed repentance saving someone. Yet you say, no so, because Jesus commanded his disciples to preach… Houston we have a problem. But we don’t have a problem is baptism is subsequent to salvation.
Which leads to the next thought, what is salvation anyway? I believe we have added the meaning of salvation to something to which it never was intended to mean. The whole premise of the book of Acts was the outpouring of God’s spirit on all flesh, and declaring the kingdom of God had come to the world. The emphasis on receiving the spirit of God by faith. Peter did not say “repent and be baptized and you shall be saved” he said “repent and be baptized and you too shall receive the spirit”. Neither did he preach the same to the house of Cornelius, repent and be baptized and you shall be saved. He preached that the kingdom of God had come, then they received the spirit of God. Neither did Paul ask the disciples of John, “have you repented and been baptized since you believed” rather he ask “have you received the spirit since you believed”.
Finally, when God poured his spirit out in the early 1900’s for years it was not repent and be baptized and get saved. It was people got saved when they believed, and God poured his spirit out on them and they then went on to be baptized. It is not about religion, religion sets edicts, hoops, forms, and calls it getting saved. The kingdom of God is individuals coming to a knowledge of God and entering the kingdom by faith, and God indwelling them with his spirit. And those same people go on to live a life of love to God and neighbor as themselves.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Where does the bible say baptism originated from Mikvah? Show me one verse in the New Testament, as there are several about forbiddance against fornication being carried over in the new covenant from the old, in regards to baptism.

I am saying baptism is something entirely new BECAUSE IT PUTS US INTO THE DEATH OF JESUS. So, I asked you what in the mikvah corresponds to putting us into Christ's death?

Again, how is baptism into Christ's DEATH similar in any way to mikvah? You never refer to Romans 6:3 which is the highlight of the entire concept of baptism int he New Testament.

Once, again please answer my question.

Mikvah, were derived from the commands under the law of the various washings for uncleanness. It was the OT equivalent to baptism. By the time of Christ they had evolved if you please, as the point of one starting a new life. As in joining a sect of Judaism. Which is why John baptized converts. As did Christ. Baptism, Mikvah washings were well established in Jewish society by the time of John. That said, before arguing our convoluted idea of what baptism we think baptism is one should find out how the Hebrew understood baptism.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Mikvah, were derived from the commands under the law of the various washings for uncleanness. It was the OT equivalent to baptism. By the time of Christ they had evolved if you please, as the point of one starting a new life. As in joining a sect of Judaism. Which is why John baptized converts. As did Christ. Baptism, Mikvah washings were well established in Jewish society by the time of John. That said, before arguing our convoluted idea of what baptism we think baptism is one should find out how the Hebrew understood baptism.

Since there is no statement in the bible that says mikvah evolved into a new life, it's something was cant' substantiate. But we do have passages that say sins are washed at baptism, and we're put into the death of Jesus by baptism. So again, where does Mikvah correspond to baptism putting us into Christ's death? When I have distinct scripture that says baptism is part of washing away sins and baptism puts us into the death of Jesus, that is not co convoluted idea. I got that from those verses. But when we have no statement saying mikvah evolved into baptism in the bible, then I would seem that as convoluted. I mean, I have statements that led me to believe what I believed. But I see no statements leading me to your idea you espouse about mikvah.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Since there is no statement in the bible that says mikvah evolved into a new life, it's something was cant' substantiate. But we do have passages that say sins are washed at baptism, and we're put into the death of Jesus by baptism. So again, where does Mikvah correspond to baptism putting us into Christ's death? When I have distinct scripture that says baptism is part of washing away sins and baptism puts us into the death of Jesus, that is not co convoluted idea. I got that from those verses. But when we have no statement saying mikvah evolved into baptism in the bible, then I would seem that as convoluted. I mean, I have statements that led me to believe what I believed. But I see no statements leading me to your idea you espouse about mikvah.

Reading the bible through 20th century understanding is the problem. Even you have said one must understand how they understood things in order to understand scripture. David Bernard's book on the origins of baptism does not go far enough back to properly understand the full meaning of how the Hebrew understood the meaning of baptism.
I understand you have what seem to be clear statements that led you to believe what you believe, I believed the same way for most of my life. Until I was forced to face some of the contradictory passages that I had ignored most of my life.
If you cannot see how righteousness can be imputed to Abraham by faith before circumcision, relates to our being made righteous before God in full standing with him before baptism. Than I cannot help you.
But it was Romans 4, that caused me to take another look at the way I believed, and to do a deeper study into the origins of baptism.
And it was the meaning of Mikvah/baptism that locked it in for me.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Ah yes the apostle’s teachings that you believe supersede the teachings of Christ.

What???

Brother, you don't have to lie about my beliefs to engage me in a discussion about differences of beliefs. Seriously. When a person cannot deal with another's actual belief, but has to create a false belief the other does not believe, and then attack that false belief, that is what is called a strawman argument.

You accused me of believing the apostle's doctrine supersedes Christ's doctrine. On what basis? Your only basis is my use of the term "apostles' doctrine." So, if anyone uses the term "apostles' doctrine," to you that means they believe the apostles beliefs supersede Christ's. So... when we read this verse....

Act 2:42 KJV And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

...you are forced to admit you believe these people believed the apostles' words superseded those of Christ! There is no more evidence that I believe their teachings superseded Christ's than there is in Acts 2:42 that they thought that way. In both my case and that of Acts 2:42, we simply used the term, "apostles' doctrine."

But I have told you in times past that Christ said with His own mouth that He prayed for all those who would believe on Him through the apostles' word.

Joh 17:20 KJV Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

And my sue of the term "apostles' doctrine" is to indicate that I believe what Jesus said and I preach to others the same thing Jesus prayed about.... and that is, they must believe in Jesus through the Apostles' word or doctrine.

So, you need to apologize for that slur since it is dishonest.

Not only that, but I also plainly told you that Jesus' command to the apostles in Luke 24:47-49 was referred to as the apostles' doctrine after they preached what he commanded in Acts 2. So, the "apostles' doctrine" is actually the directive Jesus commanded the apostles before He ascended. Their doctrine is to obey what He said.

"as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the son of Man be lifted up THAT WHO SOVER BELIEVETH in him shall not perish but have everlasting life".

If that is not a standalone statement of how faith works, I don't know what else to say.

Then you don't know what else to say! Howso? You claim the term "believeeth" discounts baptism as part of salvation, as though believing does not involve baptism. Meanwhile, Jesus commanded baptism to be done in association with belief in Mark 16:16 to be saved, and did not say salvation comes between believing and baptism.

Mar 16:16 KJV He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

...which I also told you before.

Your doctrine states "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized." You literally have to twist the words of Jesus around to make your doctrine work.

Not only that, in John 17:20 Jesus used the term "believe" in reference to the the apostles' word. He said we must believe on Him "THROUGH THEIR WORD." You know what THROUGH means, right? The manner to believe would be explained by the apostles when they gave their WORD to people to whom they preached. This means it's not any old manner of belief you assume belief to imply. There is a specific way to BELIEVE according to Jesus. Otherwise He would not have used the phrase, "through their word." He would have left it at saying, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me." But those THREE LAST WORDS mean all the world of a difference. "THROUGH THEIR WORD." You effectively removed the need for the THREE LAST WORDS in that sentence.

You say the plan of salvation is Acts 2:38, but where does Peter say that is what saves you?

We read Luke tell us that as follows:

Act 2:38-40 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (40) And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

He said the words of verse 38 and 39 "WITH" many other words involve SALVATION.

Like I said before, which you never responded to (as usual), if all people had to do was believe on Jesus and call on Jesus, then Acts 2 would not be written as it is, but altered (as you effectively altered Mark 16:16 and John 17:20) , to say this instead (you effectively altered the following numbered verses to the state in which I will show you):

Godsdrummer version:
Act 2:21 KJV And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 2:36-39 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (38) Then Peter said unto them, What do you mean, 'What shall we do'? I already told you what you must do. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved. You obviously believe on Jesus, since you're asking me what to do. Since you asked me, you must believe I told you the truth of Jesus. So I just told you all that you need to know. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved. Go ahead, don't just stand there looking at me. Do it!

But that's not what Peter said.

Their question involved seeking salvation. Peter told them about the death, burial and resurrection, which 1 Cor 15 says is the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4). And they believed what he said, indicated by their desire for Peter to tell them more. But they knew what so many today DO NOT KNOW. They knew their belief in Christ's death, burial and resurrection, was not enough. And by the way Peter responded to them, he knew it was not enough either as you propose. Peter told them to repent, get baptized in Jesus' name for remission of sins, and receive the Holy Ghost. It does not have to say "Here is how you are saved." It's the same thing, because Peter talked to them about the issue of salvation when he said, "Call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" in verse 21." Since they BELIEVED peter knew the truth about what Joel meant by being saved, they asked him what to do. So it was about how to be saved.

The question was, "what must we do" NOT what must we do to be saved? Peter already told them that calling on the name of the Lord is what would save them.

Read Acts 2:21. They asked about the entire message he preached which was ABOUT SALVATION.

I have stated over and over that I believe baptism is symbolic, (it does not wash one’s sins away) "it is our answer of a clear conscious" (whether before God or man) It symbolizes our burial with Christ, It symbolizes our washing away of sins. Finally, it is a direct command of Christ. But is it the actual point in time when sins are washed away? No Paul refutes that in Romans 4.

Wrong. Acts 22:16 says it IS the point of washing away sins, and Romans 6, two chapters AFTER Romans 4 elaborates on what FAITH requires. You stop too short of verses and sentences and even chapters now. Read the last three words of John 17:20. Read past Acts 2:37 and see verse 40. Read on from Romans 4 and into 6:3.

How can righteousness be imputed before baptism if our sins are not removed by faith? Or our sins are not removed until baptism.

I already explained that. Baptism is a NEEDFUL seal. And you never answered my question about how baptism corresponds to the seal of circumcision (WHICH YOU BROUGHT up in this discussion) if one was not allowed to worship without being circumcised. You correctly claim Abraham was righteous before circumcision. But every Jew had to receive the seal of being circumcised BEFORE THEY COULD WORSHIP. Please explain how baptism follows through with that.

See we seem to have a contradiction here, you quote Mark 16:16 to say baptism and believe, And I quote right back at you the words of Christ in John 3:14-15.

There's not contradiction in my view as I explained. But YOU have a contradiction because you cannot explain both passages as I have.

Will get to the rest of this post later. I written enough to read for now. lol

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Reading the bible through 20th century understanding is the problem.

That is what Michael Wiltcher (Parson) said about endtime prophecy. He said we have to know what the first century Jew believed, even though Jesus and the apostles NEVER SPOKE ONCE about those details Wiltcher implied.

You are not seeing what Jesus explained in John 17:20, and what Paul said in Romans 6:3. I have yet to read your explanation of Romans 6:3.

The actual problem is the New Testament does not make one statement connecting mikvah to baptism.

Even you have said one must understand how they understood things in order to understand scripture.

We understand things of their beliefs by reading explicit statements in the bible. You are ASSUMING mikvah led to baptism, when the word DID NOT SAY THAT ANYWHERE.

Will get to the rest later. Work calls.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Ah yes the apostle’s teachings that you believe supersede the teachings of Christ.

it does seem that way, yes.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

it does seem that way, yes.

Liars abound.

Oh well.

And you say that after I explained the actual case. You are a troll, shazeep. Classic as they come.