Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
But now for the main reason for this post. I would like to point
attention to a book - not written by a NAC - concerning the
nature of Christian exclusivism and how it effects those who
have never heard the Gospel. Here follows some quotations
from 'Dissonant Voices. Religious Pluralism and the Question of
Truth' , by Harold A. Netland (Vancouver: Regent College
Publishing, 1991):
And this is to indicate, that the NAC is not the only one deceived
by the old serpent...
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, the old
serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the WHOLE
world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast
out with him.
Re: Salvation for the Dead
Ezekiel 20:30 So says the Lord Jehovah: Are you defiled in the
same way as your fathers? And do you go whoring after their
abominations?
Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man puts away his wife, and she
JF ez goes from him and will be for another man, will he return to her
Registered User again? Would not that land be greatly defiled? But you play the
Posts: 2182 harlot with many lovers; yet come back to Me, says the LORD.
(8/9/03 5:40)
Reply | Edit
Seeing you are well read, when you have time please read.
Salvation of the Dead I
Salvation of the Dead II
LOL
Such an absurd idea does not in the least encourage them, but
JF ez
Registered User rather could drive them to utter despair.
Posts: 2193
(8/10/03 6:17) To put Peter in charge of such ridiculous reasoning is IMO the
Reply | Edit height of impertinence and a complete distortion of the apostle’s
true intention. Namely, to confirm that God will vindicate
believers who suffer for Christ, and will hold their persecutors
accountable on the day of judgment.
Quote:
Remember that it is through God that you have had a share in
the world and have enjoyed life, and therefore you ought to
endure any suffering for the sake of God.
For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his
son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and when Isaac saw his
father’s hand wielding a sword and descending upon him, he did
not cower.
You too must have the same faith in God and not be grieved. It
is unreasonable for people who have religious knowledge not to
withstand pain.
And who were sent forth by him, and prophesied in his name
what were made known unto them.
And yet, though these were his favourites, they suffered much;
as cruel mockings, scourgings, imprisonment, famine,
nakedness, and death in various shapes; some being stoned,
others sawn asunder, and others killed by the sword; all which
they endured with incredible patience.
For the resurrection the saints will obtain will be first, at the
beginning of the thousand years; the wicked will not live till
after they are ended; it will be by virtue of union to Christ,
whereas the wicked will be raised merely by virtue of his power;
the saints will rise with bodies glorious, powerful, and spiritual,
the wicked with base, vile, and ignoble ones; the righteous will
come forth to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the
resurrection of damnation.
Nice to see that you still have that wonderful divine knowledge
of who is and isn't part of the body of Christ. Bit exclusive
wouldn't you say?
Aren't you doing exactly the same thing Karl? We are still at
that same empass. Same concept, different thread. Karl has his
interpretation, someone offers a potentially valid, yet contrary
interpretation, and that person is wrong. Unless the Lord came
down to you (or anyone else for that matter)and specifically
said which that you (or anyone else) has THE RIGHT
interpretation, it should at least be accepted that many different
interpretations exist and that we can only speculate in many
cases as to which one is correct.
cfmbnainoach.freeyellow.com/
Jeffrey Do you know the Way to.....
Unregistered User "Perhaps this is the right way "- uu
(8/10/03 18:10)
Reply
The 'Right Way' is also the Only Way uu, not a perhaps
see" John 14:6
AnotherUU right and wrong ways
Unregistered User perhaps is the right word uu because even the only way
(8/10/03 18:23)
Reply mentioned in John 14 is either the Presbyterian way, or the
baptist way, or the NAC way, or the Evangelical way or the
whatever way.
They even tell you who will be in heaven! And then they say
the NAC is bad!!!
They don't even know what or where heaven is, but talk like
they're authorities on the subject. Best to ignore them.
Jeffrey Nice Try Sigmund, but I am serious
Unregistered User "That's how they try and catch you out.
(8/10/03 18:48)
Reply
They don't even know what or where heaven is, but talk like
they're authorities on the subject. Best to ignore them."
AnotherUU conversion attempts
Unregistered User and they act all caring and concerned until you tell them your
(8/10/03 18:51)
Reply beliefs and then they tell you how wrong you are
because their way is the right way.
John Godfrey Saxe (1816 – 1887), The Blind Men and the
Elephant
Conversion attempts
Unregistered User AUU
(8/10/03 19:32)
Reply
And while we are on the subject of conversion attemts, follow
this link to the opinion of the "original" Protestant scholar
reactor-core.org/secret/o...-lies.html
Jeffrey Luther's Anti-Semitism
Unregistered User
(8/10/03 19:47)
Good link uu,
Reply
www.raptureletters.com/index.html
JF ez
Registered User Re: Luther's Anti-Semitism
Posts: 2196 Quote:
(8/11/03 6:03) The following is an analogous situation for us Christians: God
Reply | Edit
gave us baptism, the sacrament of his body and blood, and the
keys for the ultimate purpose or final cause that we should hear
his word in them and exercise our faith therein. That is, he
intends to be our God through them, and through them we are
to be his people. However, what did we do? We proceeded to
separate the word and faith from the sacrament (that is, from
God and his ultimate purpose) and converted it into a mere
opus legis, a work of the law, or as the papists call it, an opus
operatum — merely a human work which the priests offered to
God and the laity performed as a work of obedience as often as
they received it. What is left of the sacrament? Only the empty
husk, the mere ceremony, opus vanum, divested of everything
divine. Yes, it is a hideous abomination in which we perverted
God's truth into lies and worshiped the veritable calf of Aaron.
Therefore God also delivered us into all sorts of terrible
blindness and innumerable false doctrines, and, furthermore, he
permitted Muhammad and the pope together with all devils to
come upon us.
JF ez
Registered User Anti opus vanum
Posts: 2197 No matter what race, you will never be master of your emotions
(8/11/03 6:45) by mere "opus vanum"!
Reply | Edit
For they have merely the sign, but not the thing itself.
They have the mere form, but not the power.
They have a shadow of good things to come, but not the very
image of the things.
They hear God’s words, but they do not do them.
They come in sheep’s clothing, but are ravening wolves.
They appear righteous, but are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
They teach others, but do not teach themselves.
They boast in Law, but break it.
They profess that they know God, but in their works they deny
Him, being abominable and disobedient and reprobate to every
good work.
robk1982
Registered User Thanks Markus...
Posts: 89 Very interesting.
(8/11/03 15:59)
Reply
Karl N
Registered User No confusion. - Markus
Posts: 1610 Been there, got the T-Shirt.
(8/11/03 16:25)
Reply
Unfortunately I am not as well read on the subject, so no quick
response although I am sure others will. As I have states
previously I am no Scholar and my experience is not akin to
those who left the NAC to find some higher function.
The way the NAC leads is followers is not the one of a loving
Shepard who cares for his flock……. It’s one of control and
giving them just enough so they tow the line.
Brenda
Jeffrey
Unregistered User Why's a nice Jewish Rabbi Dunking for the Dead?- Not
(8/11/03 17:38) "something that Paul himself in most likelihood supported (he
Reply uses the practise as an argument in favour of the
resurrection!)"- Markus
Hi Markus,
This statement by you is what prompted me to post. And yes, I
referred to Pastors rather than scholars purposely because they
are often the only communicator of God's Word to the Layman
other than the Holy Spirit through the Word as the individual
studies it.
That said, I strongly disagree that Sha'ul (Paul) a Pharisee who
became a Believer would ever "support"
the practice of baptism for the dead.
You know that there is a real danger to use this verse to say
that he 'supported' a practice that is mentioned no where else
in scripture. Paul's arguements or comments are really speaking
about 'some among you who say that there is no resurrection'
(vs. 12). He then and I believe in verse 29 reduces the belief to
its absurdity.
He is not endorsing, approving... but showing the weakness or
inconsistency of the belief or where it leads.
In the case of those who say NO resurrection then of course
Paul and believers should be 'pitied' more than all
But, he adds that indeed Christ Has been raised. Now in verse
29 it seems that Paul is not condoning, blessing or supporting
any such practice as baptizing for the dead, instead,he again as
he does in other places, reduces the belief to the absuridity of
where such belief leads. It does not tell us who the 'they' is but
certainly could be the same that had been saying No
resurrection. It's as if he is saying "Look if the resurrection is
not true as they say, why in the world are they baptized for the
dead? (vs.29) AND, why if it is not true are we in danger every
hour ".(vs. 30) why don't we just 'Eat drink and be merry' (vs.
32 -
NO- Vs. 33 says do not be deceived [by them] they are
corrupting your thoughts....
Markus, I believe that taking this chapter as a whole that Paul is
saying exactly the opposite. He is not concentrating at all on the
practice that obviously some were doing (baptizing for the
dead) he is refuting false teaching that said there was (is) no
resurrection. He only mentions the practice in verse 29 to show
those practicing it the inconsistency of their beliefs.
I also am no scholar Markus, but I do try to diligently study the
verses through prayer, especially ones like these. SO, there you
have it, I disagree and that is why.- Thanks for the challenge.
Dr De Monet
Unregistered User The Dr is in da house
(8/11/03 18:37) Oh Karl, you are so preditable.
Reply
Seems Markus put you in a "bind" as the best you could come
up with was a lame "I, like others can only relay what we
experience." You even sounded a little down to Dr. De Monet!
Well, Karl old buddy, when Myule, LynneKC, Soul and Kevin and
others say this in defense of their beliefs and church you are
quick to prescribe medication to bring them back to their
senses. Maybe the following will help "unbind you".
lordco.virtualave.net/enter/holyshit/
Ken
Karl N
Registered User Cheers Doc
Posts: 1612 Swallowed.....
(8/12/03 2:10)
Reply
Count...... Give us a chance.....
JF ez
Registered User Re: Baptism for the Dead - a scholarly perspective
Posts: 2200 Tough luck for those who never heard the gospel, hey?
(8/12/03 4:35)
Reply | Edit
For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law.
And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through
Law.
Romans 2:12
Their perdition will be for their sins committed without the law
of Moses, against the light of nature. Those have sinned who
have not lived up to their light.
Their not having the written law of Moses or the gospel will be
no plea in their favour, or be a reason why they should
not be condemned.
The Jew shall be judged by the law; but the Gentile who sins
apart from the law shall perish.
JF ez
Registered User Baptism for what dead?
Posts: 2201 For those dead who in their lifetime with patience in good work
(8/12/03 5:25) were seeking for glory, and honor, and incorruptibility?
Reply | Edit
Or for those dead who all their lifetime have worked out evil?
Jeffrey
Unregistered User The Dr is in da house
(8/12/03 15:18) I'm surprised at the link you posted Count,
Reply
and disappointed
AnotherUU
Unregistered User surprised?
(8/12/03 15:36) Count, strange that they are disappointed with links but they
Reply
find it OK to deny others their beliefs.
Count De Monet
Unregistered User surprised
(8/12/03 16:00) AUU,
Reply
I'm not. However, I was very pleased to read Jeffreys even-
toned response to Markus' post. I personally did not think he
had it in him to be so polite and not refer to anothers belief as
trash, heretic, false teaching and other inflammatory remarks.
He very politely stated the reasons why he thought Mark was
wrong and backed it up with good references. In fact, as King
Agrippa once told Paul (and I paraphrase here) he almost made
a Fundamentalist out of me. I actully enjoyed reading it.
Didn't agree, but nonetheless enjoyed
“… If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we die." (33) Do not be misled: "Bad company
corrupts good character [Paul quotes a line from the Athenian
comic poet, Menander (c. 342-291 B.C.)]." (34) Come back to
your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some
who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.”
Now let’s ask ourselves the question: would those who deny a
future resurrection actually have themselves baptized for the
dead? Of course it is possible, but not very plausible. If they
did, then they could not have been all that bright, because with
the custom of proxy baptisms, they contradict their denial of the
resurrection (as you and others interpret it). Let me, however,
quote from an article by Jowl R. White (‘“Batized on Account of
the Dead”: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context.’
Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997); pp. 487-499) who
writes on pp. 489-490:
Yes, JF ez, BUT … Romans 2.12 does not refer to the work of
Christ (which is relevant now), and what about 1 Timothy 2:
”(3) This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all
men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (5)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus.”
So tell me JF ez, how can all men be saved if at least they are
not given the opportunity to come to the knowledge of the
truth? – ‘(5) For there is one God and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus’.
Ken, I could not agree with you more. The job description of at
least some of our Apostles (and Bishops etc.?) must be
modified.
P.S. – this will be my last posting for now (too time consuming)
but I will like to add that the various interpretations offered by
the scholars of 1 Cor. 15.29, on balance, has some positive
consequences for the position of the NAC, in that
markus@eject.co.za
JF ez
Registered User Re: In answer to others and a P.S.
Posts: 2203 As a result, those who are then so certain about themselves to
(8/13/03 4:53) dismiss the NAC out of hand as following true doctrine in this
Reply | Edit regard, can be said to illustrate a misguided bravado and a
theological imperialism.
Edited by: JF ez at: 8/13/03 4:57
Jeffrey
Unregistered User re: response to Jeffrey
(8/13/03 12:52) Hi Markus,
Reply Yes we still disagree but I will clarify and add a bit.
You presented a good case as to why the 'they' was not
the same ones that deny the resurrection. I have no real
dispute with that point and considered it myself, which is why in
my first post to you on this I was not dogmatic but said- "It
does not tell us who the 'they' is but certainly could be the
same that had been saying No resurrection." Again, the 'they' is
not so important to me as the statement you made last time
and again imply here that Paul gives "implicit support for its
validity." and last time you stated "something that Paul himself
in most likelihood supported (he uses the practice as an
argument in favour of the resurrection)"-Markus
It is this that I strongly disagree with still because of the
implications of such beliefs and 'Pauline' support of such
practices.
We both agree that the focus in Chapter 15 is not on the
baptism of the dead. In fact, seeing that chapter 15 is only a
portion of a long epistle that addresses many issues with the
church in Corinth I see this chapter as another example of Paul
speaking out against another false teaching that was influencing
or affecting believers in the church there. (The denial of the
resurrection). Many questions come to mind here Markus, If
Paul supported this practice as you believe, then he would have
supported it for a valid purpose Markus and there would have
been reasons to support it
from the scriptures. What would be the valid reasons for
supporting baptism for the dead? Where else could we find this
in practice or spoken of in scripture?
Paul taught clearly that a person was justified by grace through
faith (Ephesians) and other places. He also spoke of the
fruitlessness of ritual or rituals done in a wrong way. The
practice of baptism for the dead was certainly occurring but
could have been limited to just a small segment (Even if they
were in the church) So, the same apostle who addresses the
reality of reasons for doing certain things for God such as
giving, the Lord's Supper.... Would there not be a purpose for
such a baptism Markus? What then was the purpose? Paul
would not endorse an empty ritual (he spoke against such) He
continually stressed personal spiritual responsibility to believers
in their doctrine and practice
Why would he now endorse a ritual or act that one would do on
the behalf of someone who had died? This is inconsistent with
the teachings of Paul it would seem.
Also, I will admit, because Paul does not focus on the practice
may imply again that it was only done by a few and was not
presenting a pressing need to address it further. (Because
again, the issue in these verses was really on the denial and
reality of the resurrection of Christ).
I think to say Paul endorsed (implying the possibility he even
practiced but surely approved of) is spiritually dangerous today
Markus. The reason is that it seems to apply some sort of
'metaphysical magic' to a ritual.
This, Paul would NOT endorse.
The reason that this whole passage is being talked about was a
springboard from the SFD in the NAC talked about on this
thread. Think about the implications of much of scriptural
teaching if indeed there is a ritual we can do on behalf of a dead
person that somehow changes or influences their spiritual
status, position.. end, whatever! And if the practice is merely an
empty ritual that the participant realizes changes nothing, then
again WHY?
As for Paul's lack of criticism, the same can be said of his lack of
support. Verse 34 sums up a real theme of Paul to the
Corinthian believers 'Awake to righteousness, and do not sin;
for some do not have the
knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.'
Now why would Paul, who presses and corrects and even
admonishes believers to live a holy consistent life both
physically, in thought and doctrine endorse something we find
nowhere else in scripture and I believe find no purpose for? -
Jeffrey
deaconess once is not enough?
Registered User Jeffrey, I believe it is a faulty argument to suggest that because
Posts: 1448
something only appears once in the Bible that it can be
(8/13/03 13:06)
Reply discredited or not justify further consideration. Paul frequently
labled practices right or wrong... and it should be noted that he
referred to baptism of the dead, yet reserved comment on its
practice.
Karl N D
Registered User Not only does it appear once (I believe), it's vague and can be
Posts: 1617
read 10 different way (aka Markus’s reference books).
(8/13/03 13:59)
Reply
And you want to base a teaching on this?
JF ez
Registered User Re: once is not enough?
Posts: 2208 This superstitious custom was very suitable for only ONE thing,
(8/13/03 14:01) viz., to provide a good argument in the case of denying the
Reply | Edit resurrection of the body.
BrendaP Karl
Unregistered User Not only does it appear once (I believe), it's vague and
(8/13/03 14:08)
can be read 10 different way (aka Markus’s reference
Reply
books).
And for exactly the same reasons mentioned by you, can you
deny a teaching based on this? I don't think so. Preferred
interpretation should be as acceptable as preferred declination,
as both are without justifiable substantiation.
Karl N Logic
Registered User If x it is stated 10 times and once y 'could' (not if one knows
Posts: 1618
scripture - not talking about me folks) be inferred, I can
(8/13/03 14:27)
Reply guarantee that it was actually x.
Discuss till you're blue in the face, yes, it still won't lead to
100% clarity.
Brenda
You can believe that your toothpaste tube is the next CA if you
wish but we have to draw the line somewhere.
Brenda
Karl N But B
Registered User You have never ever stated what you believe so why argue.......
Posts: 1620
(8/13/03 16:04)
Reply Like bald men fighting over a comb.
Brenda
Brenda
Karl N Ja B
Registered User You must let me know what the latest is.......
Posts: 1623
(8/14/03 3:32)
Reply
YbG
Registered User
Posts: 2 Re: How caring is it to agree with untruth
(7/31/04 20:03) Those who believe in the lie of "salvation for the dead" are
Reply
cursed by God and are on their way to eternal damnation.
Turn or burn!