Kjvo And Original Languages

[AVBibleBeliever]

Though I think you're 100% wrong in that position, I'm glad you're consistent.

I am so surely positive that God will not condemn anyone who pours over immersed baptism.

 

Your thoughts are irrelevant to God's word, they are like feelings everyone has some but it doesn't always make them correct.  It is more of a tradition than a a Bible seeing Paul never taught baptism in any form though he did it and on the few occasions he did and admitted to it he never gives instruction on how it was done.

 

Immersion is imposed on the text because of word's like he went down into the water and came up out of the water.  But you can do both without ever being immersed.

 

A little more study on the matter reveals that we are left with no affirmative conclusion.

[TheSword]

But if the Word of God is perfect (that is complete) in English, I don't understand how you can say that you can better understand it in another language that is not your native tongue. Is it an inadequacy on the part of the language or is it an inadequacy on your understanding of that language? In other words, should you spend all this time learning Greek or would it be better spent learning English?

 

If you're willing to honestly engage the issue, please allow me to begin that explanation with an example question:

 

1 Cor 13:1 - Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 

Consider first that Pentecostals/Charismatics like use to verse to assert Paul spoke in an angelic language to support their practice of speaking in tongues. What does "Though" mean in this instance? The context gives equal weight to both of the English definitions as a conjuction: "in spite of the fact" and "even if". Which one is correct and why?

 

Another example from this same passage...What does "charity" mean? The English definitions cover a wide range and the context does not demand one over the other. Please explain your answer.

[TheSword]

I am so surely positive that God will not condemn anyone who pours over immersed baptism.

 

Your thoughts are irrelevant to God's word, they are like feelings everyone has some but it doesn't always make them correct.  It is more of a tradition than a a Bible seeing Paul never taught baptism in any form though he did it and on the few occasions he did and admitted to it he never gives instruction on how it was done.

 

Immersion is imposed on the text because of word's like he went down into the water and came up out of the water.  But you can do both without ever being immersed.

 

A little more study on the matter reveals that we are left with no affirmative conclusion.

 

Not to accuse you of being such, but this is almost the verbatim explanation I got from a couple of Presbyterian and Lutheran coworkers when discussing baptism. A thorough study would reveal baptism was always done by immersion only until Catholicism needed explanations for church-mediated grace. I'd present you with pages and pages of such a thorough study if I thought you would read them honestly. That's not a swipe at you, most people tend to look flaws to explain away while ignoring the main point when material challenges their current understanding.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Not to accuse you of being such, but this is almost the verbatim explanation I got from a couple of Presbyterian and Lutheran coworkers when discussing baptism. A thorough study would reveal baptism was always done by immersion only until Catholicism needed explanations for church-mediated grace. I'd present you with pages and pages of such a thorough study if I thought you would read them honestly. That's not a swipe at you, most people tend to look flaws to explain away while ignoring the main point when material challenges their current understanding.

IFB are not the sole handlers of the truth.  What pages and pages of stuff.  You assume I would not if you gave such.  I know the Greek word meaning in English says immerse, and dip,  I would never call it a washing as some would.  Flaws I pointed out from scripture God pour out his Spirit which we also call as Jesus Said, "baptize you with the holy Ghost", there is no water in that.

 

Can you see your division of the body of Christ, I am of Peter I am of Apollos, I am of Paul type of thing going on.  D James Kenndy is a great man of scriptures.  I don't agree with all his teaching but he is good, RC Sproul is another, John Hagee has great stuff on prophecy but his prosperity nonsense is where he errs, the late Chuck Smith had good solid teaching on how to divide between Israel and the Church of God but erred on allowing to much fleshly music and dress. 

 

I could go on Paul said this, 1Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

 

Substitute I am Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Angligian, Wesleyan any flavor of denomination for Paul, Apollos, Peter or Jesus and you have carnality ruling in the minds and people walking as men and are being carnal.

[TheSword]

IFB are not the sole handlers of the truth.  What pages and pages of stuff.  You assume I would not if you gave such.  I know the Greek word meaning in English says immerse, and dip,  I would never call it a washing as some would.  Flaws I pointed out from scripture God pour out his Spirit which we also call as Jesus Said, "baptize you with the holy Ghost", there is no water in that.

 

Can you see your division of the body of Christ, I am of Peter I am of Apollos, I am of Paul type of thing going on.  D James Kenndy is a great man of scriptures.  I don't agree with all his teaching but he is good, RC Sproul is another, John Hagee has great stuff on prophecy but his prosperity nonsense is where he errs, the late Chuck Smith had good solid teaching on how to divide between Israel and the Church of God but erred on allowing to much fleshly music and dress. 

 

I could go on Paul said this, 1Cor 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

 

Substitute I am Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Angligian, Wesleyan any flavor of denomination for Paul, Apollos, Peter or Jesus and you have carnality ruling in the minds and people walking as men and are being carnal.

 

I didn't at all say IFB were the sole handlers of truth nor did I say that just because someone of another denomination believes something it must be wrong. In fact, I agree with my Presbyterian friend on a great many things. However, the beliefs regarding baptism, salvation, and how they relate of those other two denominations are radically different than the Baptist beliefs. In that regard, I certainly do believe Baptists have it right and will unabashedly say that Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics, etc. etc. have wrong. If I didn't believe the Baptist view was right, then I wouldn't be a Baptist. It's nonsense for me to claim to be a Baptist and give any weight to beliefs that directly contradict that. Each denominations view of baptism, like many doctrinal beliefs, are an expression of what they believe regarding sin, salvation, the Gospel, and Jesus; so no, I don't see any carnal division there because not all baptisms express the same beliefs and my position is in no way related to what Paul was rebuking in 1 Cor. I'm a Baptist because I believe the Baptist doctrinal positions are correct. If I thought Lutheran doctrines were correct then I'd be a Lutheran. However, since their doctrines contradict each other, I cannot be both. Paul and Apollos preached the same gospel and taught the same doctrine. Baptists and Lutherans and Presbyterians and Catholics and Anglicans do not. They are an either-or choice.

 

The pages and pages of stuff I was referring to was my own research over the last two years of focused study on the subject that touches on everything from church history to soteriology. Included in them are critiques of views held by Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and even Charismatics. You're right, I did assume you would not give any of it honest consideration because I have yet to see you do so in any of our interactions. Your standard response is to find a tangental weak point, equivocate on it, and then reject the whole argument. That's not at all uncommon, and I've prOBably been guilty of it myself on occasion. We also clearly disagree on how the Bible should be interpreted, so I have no reason to believe you would accept anything I have to say regardless of the facts.

 

If you want to see the material and will read it with an honest and open mind I'd be happy to share it with you; just send me your email in a private message. However, if your mind is unchangeable and you're just going to read it to look for ways to tear it down, then I won't waste my time.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I am so surely positive that God will not condemn anyone who pours over immersed baptism.

 

Your thoughts are irrelevant to God's word, they are like feelings everyone has some but it doesn't always make them correct.  It is more of a tradition than a a Bible seeing Paul never taught baptism in any form though he did it and on the few occasions he did and admitted to it he never gives instruction on how it was done.

 

Immersion is imposed on the text because of word's like he went down into the water and came up out of the water.  But you can do both without ever being immersed.

 

A little more study on the matter reveals that we are left with no affirmative conclusion.

Could be the reason the word is transliterated as baptize instead of being translated as immerse or submerge. Because it's not conclusive in scripture what mode it is.

 

I still prefer baptism by immersion but I don't get all worked up over the issue. 

[swathdiver]

I am so surely positive that God will not condemn anyone who pours over immersed baptism.

 

Your thoughts are irrelevant to God's word, they are like feelings everyone has some but it doesn't always make them correct.

 

Pot, meet Kettle!

 

Scriptural Baptism is immersion ONLY by a Scripturally sound New Testament Church ONLY.  

 

Get sprinkled at a Catholic church is not scriptural.  Getting immersed at a Calvary Chapel is not scriptural either.

 

One won't be condemned, but they sure won't grow if they can't get the first OBligation right.

[TheSword]

Could be the reason the word is transliterated as baptize instead of being translated as immerse or submerge. Because it's not conclusive in scripture what mode it is.

 

I still prefer baptism by immersion but I don't get all worked up over the issue. 

 

Ooooor....during the heightened persecution of the first couple of centuries, some early churches (notably led by Rome) adopted sprinkling and pouring as alternate modes so the infant and critically ill/wounded could be saved through church-mediated grace and continued to call it baptism for so long enough that when the common people eventually quit speaking Greek as the language of business and liturgy they assumed that's what it actually meant...kinda like the way "gay" has changed meaning...

 

Maybe....just maybe it was originally clear but became muddled over time as people tried to bend Scripture to suit their theology. That hasn't happened very often in history though so it might just be wild speculation. Or maybe a Spirit-led study of church history and linguistic etymology turned up a nugget of wisdom that helps illuminate or clarify the Word of God.

[AVBibleBeliever]

sword go a head and slip those pages off to me in a PM or email them from my profile

[AVBibleBeliever]

Could be the reason the word is transliterated as baptize instead of being translated as immerse or submerge. Because it's not conclusive in scripture what mode it is.

 

I still prefer baptism by immersion but I don't get all worked up over the issue. 

me too it is easier not as messy and is a lot of fun.

[AVBibleBeliever]

  Getting immersed at a Calvary Chapel is not scriptural either.

 

Swath, what do you mean by this?

 

Calvary teaches salvation by grace alone on the finished work of Christ.

 

They teach right division of scripture.

 

The baptize by immersion.

 

They don't allow women to teach men or female pastors

 

Their only prOBlem is being lax on dress and music which has brought in more trouble than good.  since chuck's death last year a lot of these churches that claim calvary chapel have gone to the nut case fringe.

[Ukulelemike]

 

  Getting immersed at a Calvary Chapel is not scriptural either.

 

Swath, what do you mean by this?

 

Calvary teaches salvation by grace alone on the finished work of Christ.

 

They teach right division of scripture.

 

The baptize by immersion.

 

They don't allow women to teach men or female pastors

 

Their only prOBlem is being lax on dress and music which has brought in more trouble than good.  since chuck's death last year a lot of these churches that claim calvary chapel have gone to the nut case fringe.

 

Actually, if you study their history, you'll find that much of the CC is built on poor music. CCM started in Calvary Chapel churches, originally known as the Jesus People or Jesus Freaks, mostly unsaved hippies who 'met' jesus while on drug trips, (Lonnie Frisbee?) They began with a no-change policy-come as you are, stay as you are. And much of the music introduced there was no different than what the hippies had been playing with a few words changed to try and reflect Jesus, rather than 'baby', or 'honey'. Calvary Chapel is built on a faulty foundation.

[candlelight]

Actually, if you study their history, you'll find that much of the CC is built on poor music. CCM started in Calvary Chapel churches, originally known as the Jesus People or Jesus Freaks, mostly unsaved hippies who 'met' jesus while on drug trips, (Lonnie Frisbee?) They began with a no-change policy-come as you are, stay as you are. And much of the music introduced there was no different than what the hippies had been playing with a few words changed to try and reflect Jesus, rather than 'baby', or 'honey'. Calvary Chapel is built on a faulty foundation.

 

I know a woman on Facebook that was caught up in Calvary Chapel when she was younger.  She is a reformed hippie that has turned to Judaism, as a result of her dealings with them.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Actually, if you study their history, you'll find that much of the CC is built on poor music. CCM started in Calvary Chapel churches, originally known as the Jesus People or Jesus Freaks, mostly unsaved hippies who 'met' jesus while on drug trips, (Lonnie Frisbee?) They began with a no-change policy-come as you are, stay as you are. And much of the music introduced there was no different than what the hippies had been playing with a few words changed to try and reflect Jesus, rather than 'baby', or 'honey'. Calvary Chapel is built on a faulty foundation.

I know all the history of CC.

 

I have seen many of those hippies get saved at a park near my home a s a child on the gospel of the Grace of God through faith alone.  and I saw them change, conform to Bible and teach solid bible principles, and do church plants.  Your OBservations don't agree with what I saw first hand.  while I will agree CCM partially came from them but Vinyard was really at the forefront and they truly had a faulty foundation on works and gifts plus faith.  Vinyard broke from CC because CC was not teaching the gifts, especially of tongues and also their prosperity theology.

 

The foundation CC built on was Christ Jesus Crucified for our salvation and upon this foundation every man shall be judged for how they build whether with gold, silver or precious stone or hay wood and stubble.  But for us to judge that no one in those ministries are saved and that baptism by immersion after salvation at their churches is wrong I think is a little overboard.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I know a woman on Facebook that was caught up in Calvary Chapel when she was younger.  She is a reformed hippie that has turned to Judaism, as a result of her dealings with them.

Candle, I know of plenty not just from CC but baptist as well that have gotten mixed up in the Judaism movement or Yeshua Movement as some call it.  Many of these got mixed up in the "Way of the Master" by Ray Comfort which was taught at some well known Baptist churches and schools as well.  Ray is the Lordship Salvation theology creator, he uses the Law to prove to Gentiles they are sinners.  But the Gentiles were never given the law that was for Israel Mal 4:4 ¶ Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

 

Once they had gone through that silliness of being saved by admitting they violated God's law (which never applied to them anyway) they now are on their way to OBey the law they were not OBeying before.  This is the effect of trying to convince someone they are a sinner by giving them the law (though the law will reveal sin).

 

After that many of them then migrate to these Yeshua Movement churches, where they wrongly blend all the teachings of the law of OT and NT to apply to the church even Sabbath, even though Paul never taught anything about sabbath day OBservance.

 

Once they go down that path it is nearly impossible to get them back on living by faith as they were saved.  Most of these will judge us as being lost and in sin not keeping the sabbath and not winning people with the true gospel of Christ.  It is truly a shame.