« Law and Gospel: Saint and Sinner | Main | The Healer »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54eea6129883300e54eea629f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Most Amazing Sermon I've Ever Heard:

Comments

Steve Newell

No. Jesus is using an extreme example to make a point. If I hate my mother, then it's the same as killing her which is a sin. If we take this literally, then we are committing a sin.

Is Jesus using literal or symbolic words to tell us that the Lord's Supper is? Does the balance of the New Testament support your position?

dogma

I'm not really interested in the Lord's supper and the issue of transubstantiation. This to me is a disputable matter. My concern is the need for baptism to wash away sins. This is the issue that is super important to me. I hope that you don't find that I'm trying to be argumentative.
If you are correct in your belief about baptism being essential for salvation, then there are several theological issues (that I currently hold) that will be impacted.
The point that I was trying to make is that you cannot read every verse literally. If that is the case, how does one decide which verses are literal and which ones aren't.
My grandfather was a devout Lutheran and he always told me to "never call your father by the title 'father'" he was citing Matt. 23:9 Do you believe that this verse should be taken literally like he did?
How do you decide which verses are literal and which are figurative? How do you know which is which? What's your hermaneutics method for differentiating between literal and non-literal?

One more thing,
Something that I've always wondered about, how do you answer for the thief on the cross and the fact that we wasn't baptized? If baptism were essential, it would follow that it would be essential for him as well. Jesus didn't respond "as soon as you're baptized, you'll be with me in paradise" How do you answer for that?
You could say that he was not under normal circumstances and didn't have the chance to be baptized. However he did. Someone could have brought him water.
So here's a synopsis of my rambling.
1. How do you differentiate between literal and non-literal? Is it just what sounds good?

2. How do you account for the thief on the cross?

It would be easier for me if you responded via email. llyons1@yahoo.com

Steve Newell

Nowhere did I say that one must be baptized to be saved. I stated that baptism saves. Can a person be saved by baptism? Yes. Can a person be saved without baptism? Yes. God works both ways.

As for your first point, I look at the context of the passage. Also, I look at the passage in light of all of scripture.

Henry (Rick) Frueh

"Can a person be saved by baptism? Yes. Can a person be saved without baptism? Yes. God works both ways."

Then why baptize. That's like saying a person can be saved without Jesus, so why evangelize.

Saying God saves two ways is another serious breach of Biblical truth. Two thousand years later and we still can't shake Roman Catholic doctrine. And even people like Church of Christ at least make the issue adults, the infant thing is contrived by reasoning (don't infants need to be saved) and not by sound New Testament teaching.

Spurgeon once agreed to a debate with one who believed in infant baptism. The format was each one would stand and quote a Scripture supporting their view.

The man got up and said, "For my first Scripture on infant baptism I quote from the lips of our Lord. Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not" He then sat down.

Spurgeon rose and said for my first Scripture confronting infant baptism I quote from the Old Testament. "There was a man from the Land of Uz named Job. He then sat down.

The other man said to Spurgeon, "What does that Scripture have to do with infant baptism?"

Spurgeon replied, "What does your Scripture have to do with infant baptism?"

There are some Scriptures that reference the washing away of sins and baptism. Those can be discussed. But there is no clear or unclear teaching in the New Testament about baptism of infants. It is an obvious substitution for OT circumcision.

Steve Newell

Henry,

I don't really care what Spurgeon has.

Please explain the various passages throughout the letters of Peter and Paul as well as Jesus' own words associating baptism with salvation. You have yet to provide a biblical basis for your position. I have written a piece on this blog address what Scripture so clearly teaches about Holy Baptism.

Again, do infants need salvation? If yes, when how are they saved? If no, the what happens if they die?

Our ability to reason has absolution nothing to do with our salvation. Since we are dead in our sin and it is God who saves us and gives us life. No one can make a decision for God, they can only respond to what God was do since they have been given the ability to respond by God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

henry frueh

OK, now I get it. You guys are Calvinists or a form thereof. What does it matter then about baptism? God plays a divine game of solataire in which He alone is the player and He alone directs the pawns. So all the talk of false gospels and shallow decisions et. al. are without purpose. They just serve to entertain the seratonin of believers, but they do not change anything.

As a matter of fact, the false teachings are part of God's sovereign plan. Except for the "glorifying God" response, the doctrinal discussion has no eternal purpose.

And the Scriptures that you say "so clearly teach on Holy Baptism" do not seem to be so clear to many other Biblical scholars, including Calvinists like MacArthur and Spurgeon. By the way, when a premature baby is born and seems to have no chance to live, do you baptize it?

Steve Newell

Again, you do not understand Lutheran theology. While you may have grown up in a Lutheran Church you fail to understand Lutheran theology.

I am still waiting for your biblical based response. When you can provide a scripture basis on your position, then I am done discussing this with you.

Henry (Rick) Frueh

"When you can provide a scripture basis on your position"

For the record, you,/b> have provided none and it was your position that I questioned with my original comment.

dogma

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(John 3:5)
Doesn't this verse say that one "MUST" be baptized in order to see heaven? Conversely, those who are NOT baptized CAN'T see heaven?
How do you read that verse?
It seems to say that baptism is a must!

dogma

The reason that I ask is because in your earlier post you said that people can be saved without baptism
"Can a person be saved by baptism? Yes. Can a person be saved without baptism? Yes. God works both ways."
John 3:5 seems to refute this.

Steve Newell

So Dogma, explain the thief on the cross? If Jesus making an exception for this person?

Henry,

I have referred a posting on this blog that I wrote on baptism.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/09/baptism_saves.html.

This is the basis for my position with scripture.

Steve Newell

BTW Dogma,

Thanks for supporting the biblical position that baptism saves.

dogma

Well, you still haven't addressed the issue, because now you have a problem on your hands. You
1. Claim that John 3:5 means that one MUST be baptized.
2. Claim that not everyone must be baptized to be saved?

This cannot be. Which theory are you claiming to hold to?

Steve Newell

Dogma,

I believe that baptism saves and one does not have to be baptized to be saved. This is what the bible teaches. God does not have to subject his methods of salvation to human logic. Scripture supports both. So either scripture is incorrect since it teaches two opposing position or both are true, a paradox.

BTW, I never stated that John 3:5 means that one must be baptized. I stated that Jesus states that baptism with the Spirit saves.

Dogma, I have yet to see your position on baptism. Are you willing to share your position and defend it?

dogma

I'm not here to prove my interpretation of scripture. Simply to understand why you interpret it the way that you do. I will however lay out my case for you.
In the OT Abraham was counted as righteous BEFORE circumcision. It was his faith that made him righteous. Nothing else. We know that scripture says that it is by faith that we are saved. It doesn't say faith and baptism, or anything else for that matter. I believe that we are saved by faith. Just like scripture says. Pretty simple.

I was trying to show you some things about interpretation of scripture which, I believe, would show you where you're going wrong. However, you seem to be dodging the issue.
I'll ask you again, (last time, I promise)

John 3:5 says that you MUST be baptized in order to be saved.
Is this how you interpret the verse?

Steve Newell

Dogma,

You are correct in that one must be baptized to be saved, but this does not say that God cannot save someone by the person hearing the Word which can also lead to salvation. The thief on the cross was not baptized, but Christ saved that person. I don't want to limit God's ability to save people, since God saves some through baptism and some without baptism.

dogma

Steve,
I'm not trying to be mean, but you seem to be trying to avoid the issue.
1st you say, "one MUST be baptized to be saved" that means that if one is not baptized that they can't be saved, but then you say, "hearing the word can ALSO lead to salvation"
Both of these statements can't be true.
For example,
1."Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father"
but
2. "there are OTHER ways to be saved"
I think that you can easily see that these two statements don't jive.
Either Jesus is the only way, or he's not the only way. Everyone in the world must pick a side on that issue. There is no sense in saying, 'Jesus is the only way, but there are other ways too."
See what I'm saying?
This is exactly what you're doing with baptism.

Ben C.

I dont' know whether to call dogma and Rick Pharisees or scribes. However, they seem to know everything without ever making a point.

CHRIST saves us through his death and resurrection on the cross. That's pretty simple there. Without Christ, we are all condemed to hell b/c NONE of us kept God's law perfectly. Before we were born, we were already saved b/c Christ died and rose for us.

If we can agree on that we move on to Baptism. Mark states "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" 1 Peter tells us Baptism now saves us. When we are baptised we put on Christ. We are baptized into his death (since Christ was not held in by the grave then we also are baptized into his victory) 1 Cor 15:54-58. When are baptized we take the name Christian. God comes to us. Look at Mary Magdalene after the resurrection. She thought Jesus was the gardener. When Jesus called her by name did she recognize her Savior, Jesus. When we are baptized we recognize Christ. (realize it's NOTHING we do b/c Christ did it all for us on the cross).

As for the sacraments, Lutherans believe we are partaking of Christ's true body and blood. The RCC's believe that priest 'magically' transforms the elements into Christ's body and blood. HUGE difference. Since Christ made a bodily resurrection, we take his body and since we are washed 'clean' by his blood we take his blood. We are given a free gift.

Lutherans believe in Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture alone. THe RCC's believe in traditions along with scripture. I can't understand the other poster having a problem with Scripture alone. '

I can't figure out those who selectively take scripture and use only parts of it. They agree with enough to be dangerous and argue with enough to be scary. The entire Bible points us to Christ. Realize this, if you start tearing pages out of the Bible, beware of what's on the other side. God tells us to neither add to nor take away from His scripture. Let's all remember this.

This laymen will continue to realize that Jesus Christ's actions are the only reason I will be in Heaven someday.

dogma

Ben you still haven't answered the question. Do you believe that John 3:5 teaches that a man must be baptized to be saved? Doesn't the verse say that, "unless" a man is born of Spirit and water... meaning there is no other way. That word "unless" is pretty important isn't it? So again, do you believe this to be true, that a man must be baptized to enter heaven?

Martin Twombly

This is an interesting discussion. Please, for the sake of us who are earnestly wondering about these things, don't let it get out of hand.

What do you think about this?

Christ says that unless one is born of water *and* Spirit, he can't enter the kingdom, right? But, later he tells the thief "today you will be with me in Paradise"

How do we justify these? Is it permissible to assume that Paradise and the Kingdom are not identical? Perhaps, there's water in Paradise?

Maybe, I'm trying too hard? Taking Christ's words too literally? Missing context?

Thanks for your comments.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter