What About Our 'own' Convictions?

[AVBibleBeliever]

opps

[AVBibleBeliever]

So you are saying the translators were  not good enough to do their jOB?

 

It sounds awfully like you are suggesting that God chose the wrong people to do the translation.

 

Of course they OBviously didn't know the language they were translating from anyway, so it really doesn't make any difference whether or not they were the right people......

words from someone who must now see that the truth is there is no mode of operation in the text and must resort to childish rhetoric.  Instead of common sense truth as seen clearly from the text.  They transliterated many words they could not translate as not to add or take away from the text thereby putting themselves under a curse.  But just because they transliterate does not mean we have to run to false rendering of some man's Greek dictionary to get the meaning then force it back into the text then call everyone who disagrees a false teacher, heretick or any other nomer.

[Steve Schwenke]

AVBB

I seems to me that you are arguing a technicality here.  You admitted earlier that based on Rom. 6, we should continue to immerse people as we have for centuries.  So what is your point in continuing this argument over baptism, transliteration, and the mode of baptism when you yourself believe and practice immersion? 

[HappyChristian]

Definition of immersion:  

 

 

 baptism in which the whole body of the person is submerged in the water

Now, this is a modern definition, but my point is quite simple:

 

One cannot be immersed if one is only partly in the water - whether it is standing half out of the water to perform a baptism or whether one is having water poured on one's head.  

 

Romans 6 (as has been pointed out) clearly shows that immersion is the mode to be used - one cannot simulate burial and resurrection any other way.

 

The topic of the thread is our "own" convictions - not other religions' practices re: baptism.  Let's give that a rest, now, AVBB, okay?  And, there are many on here - myself included - whose "own" convictions are that there is nothing wrong with looking at the Greek and Hebrew for further clarification. So let's give that a rest, too, shall we?  

[AVBibleBeliever]

AVBB

I seems to me that you are arguing a technicality here.  You admitted earlier that based on Rom. 6, we should continue to immerse people as we have for centuries.  So what is your point in continuing this argument over baptism, transliteration, and the mode of baptism when you yourself believe and practice immersion? 

that is the point the tecnicallity is the fact that scripture is lackiing and silent and forces people to interpret in the way they see it.  The reality is people have convictions, if Episcopalians want to pour then we give them the grace and let them, if Baptist want to Immerse then so be it.  But to bash and call people hereticks over a interpretation that can't be 100% proved either way is nothing more than devouring one another and causes more division on topics people feel strongly convicted on.

 

Gal 5:13-15 ¶ For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.   For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.   But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

 

I went to a Episcopalian church to preach and I asked what was the extra pulpit in the middle of the platform for and I was informed it was their Baptistery.  I then asked, "how do you fit in it"?  They laughed, I laughed and that was it, no argument they knew I was for immersion and I knew they were for pouring but we wont let it keep us from preaching the word to those who need to hear it.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Definition of immersion:  

Now, this is a modern definition, but my point is quite simple:

 

One cannot be immersed if one is only partly in the water - whether it is standing half out of the water to perform a baptism or whether one is having water poured on one's head.  

 

Romans 6 (as has been pointed out) clearly shows that immersion is the mode to be used - one cannot simulate burial and resurrection any other way.

 

The topic of the thread is our "own" convictions - not other religions' practices re: baptism.  Let's give that a rest, now, AVBB, okay?  And, there are many on here - myself included - whose "own" convictions are that there is nothing wrong with looking at the Greek and Hebrew for further clarification. So let's give that a rest, too, shall we?  

no where in any of the text are the final steps of baptism shown or taught.  Romans six has no water any direction 20 verse or more.  Buried in not immersed and raised is not lifted up out of the water.  It is only the formula we use.  You will be surprised to learn that Episcopals use the same verse when they Baptize.

 

That is what all the point has been about convictions based on ones interpretation, which can't be proven clearly by the KJV English Text either way.  It is "my opinion" (and please note this as such), that if you have to go to an unprovable and unknown Koine Greek language and take a Classical Greek definition as that of Koine.  You may not truly believe and you may be showing your lack of trust that the KJV Bible is whole and complete and preserved and without error to teach you in English today.

[DaveW]

.....

[Steve Schwenke]

gnat-straining

[Salyan]

The topic of the thread is our "own" convictions - not other religions' practices re: baptism.  Let's give that a rest, now, AVBB, okay?  

 

 

no where in any of the text are the final steps of baptism shown or taught.  Romans six has no water any direction 20 verse or more.  Buried in not immersed and raised is not lifted up out of the water.  It is only the formula we use.  You will be surprised to learn that Episcopals use the same verse when they Baptize.

 

 

HappyChristian, on 30 Jun 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

And, there are many on here - myself included - whose "own" convictions are that there is nothing wrong with looking at the Greek and Hebrew for further clarification. So let's give that a rest, too, shall we?  

 

AVBibleBeliever, on 04 Jul 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

That is what all the point has been about convictions based on ones interpretation, which can't be proven clearly by the KJV English Text either way.  It is "my opinion" (and please note this as such), that if you have to go to an unprovable and unknown Koine Greek language and take a Classical Greek definition as that of Koine.  You may not truly believe and you may be showing your lack of trust that the KJV Bible is whole and complete and preserved and without error to teach you in English today.

 

Which part of 'give it a rest' exactly did you not understand?

                                        

[Ukulelemike]

Maybe this all comes down to one question, then: Can we, as believers, really KNOW the full truth of scripture? Is it possible? If it is, why don't we, because assumably we are all believers, many well-studied, prayed-up and seeking the truth-why do we come to so many different conclusions, sometimes even on the basics?

 

For instance: I was reading about Sir Isaac Newton the other day. Clearly a very intelligent guy, a believer in Christ and the Bible, yet he rejcted the trinity, and believed that one of the worst sins one could commit was to worship Jesus as God.

 

WHY don't we get it? Is it because of a natural proclivity to approach things from our own inborn biases? Do we accidentally lift certain teachers and preachers to a pedestal and tend to lean toward their understanding? Are we leaning on our OWN understanding, something, by the way, we are told NOT to do?

 

I posit that the word of God was written so that we can understand it, and we are given the Spirit of God to guide us in that truth, and if we don't get it, it is our own fault.  The question then, is, why? What are we doing wring? One thing the Lord desires is that His people be in one accord. How can we acomplish that? Is it pride? Worldly wisdom? Not dying to self enough? What keeps us from truly KNOWING?

[AVBibleBeliever]

I would love to answer some of the remarks above but I have been told to stop and I was banned for one day because I responded.  Yet it seems ok for everyone else to carry on.

 

I would suggest if you want it to stop best to just close the thread.

[Steve Schwenke]

Mike

I don't know the answers to those questions.  What I do know is that we are stuck in a sin-cursed world in sin-cursed bodies and minds.  I think that is why we are supposed to exhibit grace to one another to the best of our ability.  Where I draw the line on that is a blatant denial and change to the very words of the LIving God, as preserved for us in the KJV.  When somebody has to change the words to prove their point, that's where I have a difficult time having "grace" with them, even if they are saved. 

I believe in liberty of conscience.  Some matters truly are matters of conscience.  Some people make these matters into Bible Doctrine, and pound them incessantly.  I can have grace with them.  The prOBlem is they won't have grace with me if I don't bow to their whims.

 

SIN - that is the prOBlem. 

 

Thus, I think our attitude towards the brethren on these matters on personal conviction (i.e. matters of conscience) is just as important as what we actually believe on those matters. 

[Salyan]

I would love to answer some of the remarks above but I have been told to stop and I was banned for one day because I responded. Yet it seems ok for everyone else to carry on.

I would suggest if you want it to stop best to just close the thread.

AVBB, you were specifically told by a mod to stop pushing two particular subjects that had been quite thoroughly explained. You were temporarily suspended because of your direct disOBedience to that order. I would suggest you stop pushing the issue.

[MountainChristian]

Baptism made simple: it's a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Every time we witness a baptism, we are reminded of what Christ did for us on the cross, in the tomb, and His resurrection.  We mock Christ's sacrifice when we change the picture by sprinkling or pouring instead of immersing. 

 

When we begin to mess with the pictures God has placed in the Bible, we will miss out on the blessings of God. Just look at what happened to Moses when he messed with one of God's pictures. Numbers 20:8-12.  I Corinthians 10:1-6.

 

As a side question, why would John the Baptist, Peter, and the others go through all the trouble and inconvenience of getting waist deep in water if they were just going to simply pour a cup of water over the persons head? 

 

By far the best comment in this thread after it turned to baptising. As for me personally I'm in agreement with Li Bai Jai. 

 

If anyone uses AV's logic it leads to doubt not faith. What did they do? Might as well say baptiso means wading or splashing. Maybe John splashed Jesus. John 3:23 says there was much water so maybe baptise means swim. See how this train of thought leads to doubt. That's what Bill Clinton was doing when he said what does this word mean? How do you define "is"? Oh okay, so without knowing what to do after getting in the water, immersion or sprinkling or pouring or splashing or swimming or wading or drinking, all could be baptising cause we don't know what it is. Does this lead to faith? So its basicly, have a conviction that no one else can have a conviction about what baptism means. Stand firm on not knowing? 

[heartstrings]

Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

 

And what would be the purpose of going down into a river if all you need is a sprinkle on top of your head? You can do that with a cup.