Roman Catholic Resources
Comments
-
I agree... I am not catholic however I just pre pub the catholic encyclopedia. It is good for research purposes. I actually called logos to find out if I could purchase the scrolls that the book of mormon was translated from... It would be indispensable for apologetics. They are actually egyptian burial scrolls..:Logos tried to purchase them, however the mormons wont let them go... They know it will destroy everything they believe when common man can see those scrolls, and translate them for themselves .......
0 -
That depends on what type of protestant you are. Reformed protestants dont believe that. They believe that regeneration precedes faith. We are saved in order to believe, we do not believe in order to be saved.
They see the order
1. Grace'
2. Regeneration
3. Faith
4. Justification
I believe regeneration and justification are two ways of looking at the same coin, therefore you cannot seperate them.. In fact Calvin even taught that.
therefore the order is
Grace'
Faith
Regeneration, Justification, Adoption
These three things are three fold concerning the dispensation.. Example: We are regenerated; we are being regenerated; and we will be regenerated. Past present and future..
0 -
As a former Priest, and still in love with the great scholars of the church I found everything I needed. I use the "Revised Standard Version, Catholic Addition" (although I would like to see the St. Joseph Confraternity Version), the Jerome Biblical Commentaries, and the mother of all theological works, The Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers. Almost all other Catholic Theological resources come from this resource.
As to books written by individual authors, either on doctrinal, theological, or other issues by Catholic Authors I am sure you will find Logos would be more than happy to include them if the demand was there. Should you find a book you would like added, start a blog, get enough people to request it, and I think you will find it on the list shortly.
May God Bless You In Your Studies, Pastor Al
0 -
Blair Laird said:
That depends on what type of protestant you are. Reformed protestants dont believe that. They believe that regeneration precedes faith. We are saved in order to believe, we do not believe in order to be saved.
They see the order
1. Grace'
2. Regeneration
3. Faith
4. Justification
I believe regeneration and justification are two ways of looking at the same coin, therefore you cannot seperate them.. In fact Calvin even taught that.
therefore the order is
Grace'
Faith
Regeneration, Justification, Adoption
These three things are three fold concerning the dispensation.. Example: We are regenerated; we are being regenerated; and we will be regenerated. Past present and future..
One should point out that, whatever the ordo salutis, this is a *logical* order, not chronological order. But I've never seen a Reformed theologian have regeneration subsequent to faith or speaking of regeneration in progressive terms. And at first glance that would seem to undercut the system. As long as we are going to distinguish between the "parts" of salvation regeneration will need to precede the act of repentance/faith in any Reformed soteriology. Also, I find that saying "saved in order to believe" is imprecise. But I don't want to get this thing more off topic.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Blair Laird said:
That depends on what type of protestant you are. Reformed protestants dont believe that. They believe that regeneration precedes faith. We are saved in order to believe, we do not believe in order to be saved.
They see the order
1. Grace'
2. Regeneration
3. Faith
4. Justification
I believe regeneration and justification are two ways of looking at the same coin, therefore you cannot seperate them.. In fact Calvin even taught that.
therefore the order is
Grace'
Faith
Regeneration, Justification, Adoption
These three things are three fold concerning the dispensation.. Example: We are regenerated; we are being regenerated; and we will be regenerated. Past present and future..
Hi Blair, I apologize for picking your post to chime in, but you've most beautifully laid the groundwork for the point I've been mulling over as I've followed the dialog. It seems to me more helpful to think of grace as a chord. And our various theological traditions are in dispute--not about which notes belong in the chord, as you've eloquently pointed out. Rather, we're in disagreement about which note is the melody & how the other notes support it.
Many blessings to you all...
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Bill Stonebraker said:
Hi Blair, I apologize for picking your post to chime in, but you've most beautifully laid the groundwork for the point I've been mulling over as I've followed the dialog. It seems to me more helpful to think of grace as a chord. And our various theological traditions are in dispute--not about which notes belong in the chord, as you've eloquently pointed out. Rather, we're in disagreement about which note is the melody & how the other notes support it.
Many blessings to you all...
I'm not sure I follow the simile. I think part of the problem is, as I pointed out earlier, that similar language is being used with different referents. For example, all the theological traditions speak of grace and justification. But the concepts behind those linguistic symbols are different for the different traditions. So a Presbyterian and a Roman Catholic may both say that salvation is by grace but mean two very different things. Pope Benedict XVI may say sola fide is fine as long as it doesn't leave out charity and thereby undercut the very (Protestant) notion of sola fide.
Permit me to make this point by looking at Islam (the religion is on my mind because of the other thread). I think this will be a good example because Islam also speaks of grace and justification, as do all Christian systems. Most Muslim theologians will say that *everything* we have from God is by grace. For example, the Quran teaches that God is gracious and forgives sins (an act of grace) (Surah 3.16; 8.29; 27.73), but Islamic theology has a very different concept of grace than Christianity (or at least Protestant Christianity). For example, God extends grace at no cost to himself (that's why there is no need for a redeemer) and this grace is also at times seen as dependent upon the condition and merits of the person (Surah 8.53; esp. Surah 11.3!); thus, salvation is in many places dependent upon good works (Surah 7.7-9; 21.47).
Yet I have had personal conversations with Muslims who, at first, say that they agree with the Christian that "salvation is by grace". Well, is this true that they *agree* with the Christian here? No. *It is true* that we both use the term *grace* to refer to God's relationship to man, but it is not true that we *agree* (on the meaning) that salvation is by grace.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
I am really enjoying reading this thread.....
My Grace says that I KNOW I have eternal life....According to what I've studied no Muslim can say that....
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->1 John 5
11And this is the record, that God hath
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.12He that hath the Son hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God hath not life.13These things have I written unto you that
believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.Chuck
Laptop: Lenovo P580 - 15.6" IdeaPad Laptop
- 6GB Memory - 750GB Hard Drive - Windows 7
Iphone5s Logos 7, Bronze0 -
Charles C Pace said:
I am really enjoying reading this thread.....
My Grace says that I KNOW I have eternal life....According to what I've studied no Muslim can say that....
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer41 John 5
11And this is the record, that God hath
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.12He that hath the Son hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God hath not life.13These things have I written unto you that
believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.It is true that Muslims (at least all the ones that I have talked to) do not want to say that they can have assurance of "salvation". They feel that such assurance would violate the sovereignty of God (which just goes to show that the Islamic concept of sovereignty is also differently conceived than the Christian).
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
Most Muslim theologians will say that *everything* we have from God is by grace. For example, the Quran teaches that God is gracious and forgives sins (an act of grace) (Surah 3.16; 8.29; 27.73), but Islamic theology has a very different concept of grace than Christianity (or at least Protestant Christianity).
I keep asking myself why do people try to differentiate protestant theology from roman theology.. Alot of so called "protestant" theology does not really differ from roman theology.. There are I believe 2 forms of salvic theology I have come upon.
1. Works based, but through grace theology..they say our etermal destiny is obtained by God's grace alone, but this eternal salvation comes only by means of grace ( works or sacraments, however one wishes to classify them)
2. Salvation by faith in the work of Christ alone. in which ones eternal destiny is based on his faith in the promises of God and work of Christ on the cross. And this alone.. Any work or sacraments they follow are in following Gods commands, (ie be baptised, take communion, assemble ourselves together etc etc) are a result of their obtained eternal salvation, and their gracious thanks for what God has done for them.
I can agree, however where islam is different sort of. Where they do not believe a redeemer is necessary,, Nto much unlike jews who are still trying to follow the law, or many pegan religions..
0 -
Charles C Pace said:
I am really enjoying reading this thread.....
My Grace says that I KNOW I have eternal life....According to what I've studied no Muslim can say that....
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer41 John 5
11And this is the record, that God hath
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.12He that hath the Son hath life; and he
that hath not the Son of God hath not life.13These things have I written unto you that
believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.Sadly enough I know many churches who do not believe this. No one who does not practice or believe in OSAS believes this passage.. for they could never "KNOW" they have eternal life until after they have passed away, and even then, only if they did enough things right in order to obtain eternal life in there lifetime and did not screw up.. And then we have those who teach purgatorial cleansing.. yet even they could never know while they are living. just have another way of making it if they screwed up while alive..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
No one who does not practice or believe in OSAS believes this passage
According to Ray Comfort some who say they are saved are not ("false conversion.") According to Jesus some who believe they are saved are not.
I was raised in the Independent Christian Church (a Stone-Campbell branch.) I now attend an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. I have heard both sides of this OSAS argument but neither side seems to get this one obvious point I wish to make:
John wrote this letter to SAVED people who did not KNOW that they were saved securely. John did not declare them lost for not knowing (like my Baptist friends declare concerning my Campbellite friends.) Also, Christ condemned some who "KNEW" they were saved when He judges them saying, "I never knew you." The eternal security debate has degraded to almost being a works-based salvation doctrine whereby we are saved by how well we KNOW we are.
If you can not be truly saved until you get all your doctrine perfected and understood, I think you have to conceed none of the great preachers will go to heaven and few godly old ladies.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
John Bowling said:
I think part of the problem is, as I pointed out earlier, that similar language is being used with different referents.
Exactly. Which is why my first reaction is to ask "how do you define x?" and "who taught you that definition?" As has been demonstrated on this thread, it leads to disagreements over whether two passages are speaking on the same topic - hence, can be used as a support for a rebuttal argument. And in a forum of short posts such as this, we (well at least me) tend to refer to single passages rather than gather everything said in Scripture about a topic.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Bryan Brodess said:
No one who does not practice or believe in OSAS believes this passage
According to Ray Comfort some who say they are saved are not ("false conversion.") According to Jesus some who believe they are saved are not.
I was raised in the Independent Christian Church (a Stone-Campbell branch.) I now attend an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. I have heard both sides of this OSAS argument but neither side seems to get this one obvious point I wish to make:
John wrote this letter to SAVED people who did not KNOW that they were saved securely. John did not declare them lost for not knowing (like my Baptist friends declare concerning my Campbellite friends.) Also, Christ condemned some who "KNEW" they were saved when He judges them saying, "I never knew you." The eternal security debate has degraded to almost being a works-based salvation doctrine whereby we are saved by how well we KNOW we are.
If you can not be truly saved until you get all your doctrine perfected and understood, I think you have to conceed none of the great preachers will go to heaven and few godly old ladies.
I think if no one could be saved until all of your doctrines are perfected there would be very few in heaven..
I think the thrust of the matter is this, your right.. there are some who believe they are saved, and are not.. in fact I would say there are many.. who have placed their faith in a false gospel.. I think the jist of the argument though is that if we are truely saved ( meaning God has truely given us eternal life) that we are forever saved. Which is what John was trying to tell them.. As he said "so you may continue to have faith in the name of Christ" We are going to fail, we are going to sin. Satan will try to fool, us, our flesh will prevail.. Yet John wants us to know that even though we might wonder.. God will keep his promise..
I like the passage in 2 timothy where pauls tells us that even if we are faithless, whe remains faithful— for he can not deny himself. He promised us eternal life. If he gives it to us, then for any reason takes it back. He is unfaithful, and in fact a liar, for the life he promised was not eternal..
0 -
MJ. Smith said:John Bowling said:
I think part of the problem is, as I pointed out earlier, that similar language is being used with different referents.
Exactly. Which is why my first reaction is to ask "how do you define x?" and "who taught you that definition?" As has been demonstrated on this thread, it leads to disagreements over wether two passages are speaking on the same topic - hence, can be used as a support for a rebuttal argument. And in a forum of short posts such as this, we (well at least me) tend to refer to single passages rather than gather everything said in Scripture about a topic.
This can be easily taken care of though.. What is the context of the passage.. Does it contradict other areas of scripture. I can make any verse say what I want it to.. But if I take context and scripture as a whole.. most false interpretations are found..
an example I give is john 6 as we were speaking about earlier..
0 -
You are very correct we are a bit off subject. My post may be beneficial to a reader so I will respond.
Concerning "saved in order to believe" is imprecise"
Unless a person from the reformed perspective wishes to a say a person is not saved by regeneration, then they must conclude you are saved in order to believe. Since according to them regeneration precedes faith.
Regeneration is progressive.. Sanctification is the technical term for it
Calvin in his commentaries spoke about regeneration being subsequent to faith and also he spoke about progressive regeneration in ICR. What is really interesting is Augustine held to a progressive justification.
On that note I think the scriptures are clear.. We believe and are saved the logical order is faith then regeneration unless one holds that you are not saved by the regeneration (Titus 3:5 says otherwise)
May the Lord Bless you
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
This can be easily taken care of though.. What is the context of the passage.. Does it contradict other areas of scripture.
These are necessary steps - but they don't tell us if we are using the same meaning for a word.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Catholics have a different use of the terminology I agree. That is one reason it is helpful to own Catholic resources, it can save you a lot of headache when discussing doctrine.
One more question, I noticed you say sola fide. Looking at the reformed perspective, how can a calvinist hold to sole fide if they have the logical order of salvation
(regeneration then faith )? That always puzzled me, unless they say that regeneration and being justified can be separated. The problem with that understanding is all the Church fathers including Calvin seen being justified and being regenerated as two sides of the same coin. One is the inward act of being saved and the other is the outward act of being declared righteous.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
This can be easily taken care of though.. What is the context of the passage.. Does it contradict other areas of scripture.
These are necessary steps - but they don't tell us if we are using the same meaning for a word.
No, but this is not what we are after. we are after the correct meaning of the word.. are we not??
0 -
Blair Laird said:
Catholics have a different use of the terminology I agree. That is one reason it is helpful to own Catholic resources, it can save you a lot of headache when discussing doctrine.
One more question, I noticed you say sola fide. Looking at the reformed perspective, how can a calvinist hold to sole fide if they have the logical order of salvation
(regeneration then faith )? That always puzzled me, unless they say that regeneration and being justified can be separated. The problem with that understanding is all the Church fathers including Calvin seen being justified and being regenerated as two sides of the same coin. One is the inward act of being saved and the other is the outward act of being declared righteous.
Regeneration means born again correct?? which would mean we have passed from spiritual death to spiritual life. or given life in Christ, or given eternal life.
the only way this can happen is to have the penalty of sin ( death) removed, and be declared righteous in Gods eyes,, which is technically what justified means. declared right.. or innocent of wrong doing..
So justification would have to come before regeneration can take place.. although in spiritual terms they both can happen at the same time,, It is done by God..[:D]
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
No, but this is not what we are after. we are after the correct meaning of the word.. are we not??
No, I'm after the correct meaning of the Word - and for correction, reproof, education etc. that means understanding the words of Scripture in the language I am reading, its relationship to the words in the original language, and the words I am using in conversation with fellow Christians.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
No, but this is not what we are after. we are after the correct meaning of the word.. are we not??
No, I'm after the correct meaning of the Word - and for correction, reproof, education etc. that means understanding the words of Scripture in the language I am reading, its relationship to the words in the original language, and the words I am using in conversation with fellow Christians.
Then you must make sure the word agrees with context of the passage and does not contradict other areas of scripture..
Like I said depending on who is doing the defenition, or writing the commentary or doing the exegesis,, your going to get their bias as to what it means.. how do you know who is right?? you will not fail taking context and making scripture not contradict.. guaranteed..
0 -
Oden holds to a similar belief, I am pretty fond of his theology except what he believes about the knowledge of God and minor other issues. They both do happen at the same time (two sides of the same coin) and that understanding gives no leeway for reformed theology (doctrine of total depravity according to them). You have good logic, my point was that faith precedes this (born again, justified and adoption). Calvinist put born again before faith, you have made an excellent point. I just dont separate being justified and being regenerated as though one comes before the other even on logical terms. Excellent point none the less..
God bless
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Then you must make sure the word agrees with context of the passage and does not contradict other areas of scripture..
Okay, I promise this is my last attempt to get you to understand my statement. There are a number of different definitions of a word that could meet your context/noncontradiction criteria - as long as one is consistent in your meaning. This is especially true when we speak of God who is beyond human language.
A trvial example, assume English is my second language. If I were to switch the meaning of "red" and "green" and do so consistently, I could read the Scripture in context and without contradition. A colorblind person would never discover I had the colors reversed. However, someone using "red" and "green" in the standard way could discover through questioning that I used "red" to mean something different than it meant to them.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Blair,
I didn't want to pull this thread further off topic so I've opened a new thread responding to you. See here.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
Then you must make sure the word agrees with context of the passage and does not contradict other areas of scripture..
Okay, I promise this is my last attempt to get you to understand my statement. There are a number of different definitions of a word that could meet your context/noncontradiction criteria - as long as one is consistent in your meaning. This is especially true when we speak of God who is beyond human language.
A trvial example, assume English is my second language. If I were to switch the meaning of "red" and "green" and do so consistently, I could read the Scripture in context and without contradition. A colorblind person would never discover I had the colors reversed. However, someone using "red" and "green" in the standard way could discover through questioning that I used "red" to mean something different than it meant to them.
I think I understand in part.. although I do not see how someone who spoke english could get "red and green" mixed up.. as they are not anywhere near the same.
I think I am refering to things like in John 6. where many people to take Jesus literaly when he says eat my flesh and drink my blood and you will have eternal life.. and thus they recieve the eucharist weeklly.. Yet as I attempted to show earlier, ( it was breef, I have a whole outline on john 6 that explains it but probably to large for in here, ) it is out of context.. so the greek word used for flesh and blood should not be taken literal as in the actual body of Christ. but symbolic as to the logos of Christ.. the gospel.. as paul calls it the death burial and ressurection of Christ.. That is what gives us eternal life. faith in that..
That is what I am trying to point out. Baptismo and its derivitives coould also be taken.. as many interpretations to do and fall with even classical greek interpretations.. it is just water..so every time many see the word baptise, they automatically assume water.. why? because many interpret the greek word and associate with water at all times, .. which is wrong..
edit. I wanted to add, I was hoping the Luthran would respond.. I know the catholic response to my john 6 proposal.. Have never heard a non catholic who takes the eucharists viewpoint..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
That is what I am trying to point out. Baptismo and its derivitives coould also be taken.. as many interpretations to do and fall with even classical greek interpretations.. it is just water..so every time many see the word baptise, they automatically assume water.. why? because many interpret the greek word and associate with water at all times, .. which is wrong..
"associate with water at all times, .. which is wrong" But a vast majority of the time that is the correct association. Not only did the Ethiopian eunich understand this but in the whole history of baptism (pre- and post-apostolic) it is the predominant method employed. But I am way off-topic here. [:#]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Bryan Brodess said:
That is what I am trying to point out. Baptismo and its derivitives coould also be taken.. as many interpretations to do and fall with even classical greek interpretations.. it is just water..so every time many see the word baptise, they automatically assume water.. why? because many interpret the greek word and associate with water at all times, .. which is wrong..
"associate with water at all times, .. which is wrong" But a vast majority of the time that is the correct association. Not only did the Ethiopian eunich understand this but in the whole history of baptism (pre- and post-apostolic) it is the predominant method employed. But I am way off-topic here.
Yes, and we will all agree the theopian was immersed in water.. I am talking about passages like 1 cor 12 ( baptised into the body) or romans 6 (baptised into death and burial) were I do not believe any water in in reference. I believe it tells us exactly what we are immersed into.. the bodym, death and burial of Christ.. yet people wish to force water into their defenitions here. Which is my point..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Yes, and we will all agree the theopian was immersed in water.. I am talking about passages like 1 cor 12 ( baptised into the body) or romans 6 (baptised into death and burial) were I do not believe any water in in reference. I believe it tells us exactly what we are immersed into.. the bodym, death and burial of Christ.. yet people wish to force water into their defenitions here. Which is my point..
I fail to understand WHY the Ethiopian eunuch even bothered to get immersed in "much water" if it were not for the effect of being joined to the body through the death, burial & resurrection of Christ. It seems to me you want to be at the end destination without going through the process to get there. If God agreed with that method He would have moved the Israelites from Egypt to the Canaan using a Star Trek transporter instead of having them trek through the Red Sea.
(God did move Phillip in similar fashion to get him to the eunuch.[;)])If water baptism is not what 1 Cor 12 & Romans 6 are talking about what type of baptism are referenced? How does a believer go about joining to the body and the death, burial & resurrection? My Pentecostal friends say it is by the baptism of the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. What say you? Certainly there is SOMETHING you are baptised in/through/with. I am not disputing the purpose, I am just asking what is the method?
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Bryan Brodess said:
Yes, and we will all agree the theopian was immersed in water.. I am talking about passages like 1 cor 12 ( baptised into the body) or romans 6 (baptised into death and burial) were I do not believe any water in in reference. I believe it tells us exactly what we are immersed into.. the bodym, death and burial of Christ.. yet people wish to force water into their defenitions here. Which is my point..
I fail to understand WHY the Etheopian eunuch even bothered to get immersed in "much water" if it were not for the effect of being joined to the body through the death, burial & resurrection of Christ. It seems to me you want to be at the end destination without going through the process to get there. If God agreed with that method He would have moved the Israelites from Egypt to the Canaan using a Star Trek transporter instead of having them trek through the Red Sea. (God did move Phillip in similar fashion to get him to the eunuch.
) If water baptism is not what 1 Cor 12 & Romans 6 are talking about what type of baptism are referenced? How does a believer go about joining to the body and the death, burial & resurrection? My Pentecostal friends say it is by the baptism of the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. What say you? Certainly there is SOMETHING you are baptised in/through/with.Yes I have heard about this tongues thing. However, I think we can see that Paul makes it clear that certain gifts, including tongues, are only given to certain people. and only to do what God needs done.
As for 1 cor and rom 6, I take baptize as the verb, and the "body" , Death and Burial" as the nouns. in other words, Someone is baptising us, this would be God ( holy spirit to be precise) and what we are being placed into is the Body in 1 cor, and the death and burial of Christ in rom 6..
take it like this.
I was baptised in water. water was the thing I was baptised in.
I was baptised in Christs death and burial, it was his death and burial I was baptised in.
I was baptised in the the boy of Christ. It was the body I was placed into.
do we not want to be in the body of a Christ?? Is that not out goal? well paul tells us how that is done..
13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body
Who did the baptising? the one spirit.. or the holy spirit.. who is baptised,, all of us,, and what are we baptised into? the body which is what Body? the body of Christ..
why do people want to force water in this verse??
0 -
Interesting perspective that deserves a closer look.Bryan Brodess said:As for 1 cor and rom 6, I take baptize as the verb, and the "body" , Death and Burial" as the nouns. in other words, Someone is baptising us, this would be God ( holy spirit to be precise) and what we are being placed into is the Body in 1 cor, and the death and burial of Christ in rom 6..
I have two problems with this.
1) Why did Jesus undergo water baptism? Could not the Holy Spirit have descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove without the water baptism that "fulfilled all righteousness?"
2) Why did the Great Commission include the command to baptize? If it were not something done by the believers to the new converts?Bryan Brodess said:why do people want to force water in this verse??
Probably the same reason they have a memorial called Communion. They place a symbolic value on a physical ritual.
FYI: I do not agree with my Pentecostal friends' interpretation.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Interesting perspective that deserves a closer look.Bryan Brodess said:As for 1 cor and rom 6, I take baptize as the verb, and the "body" , Death and Burial" as the nouns. in other words, Someone is baptising us, this would be God ( holy spirit to be precise) and what we are being placed into is the Body in 1 cor, and the death and burial of Christ in rom 6..
I have two problems with this.
1) Why did Jesus undergo water baptism? Could not the Holy Spirit have descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove without the water baptism that "fulfilled all righteousness?"
2) Why did the Great Commission include the command to baptize? If it were not something done by the believers to the new converts?Jesus was doing what as per mosaic law needed to be done in order for arron to be high priest, He was washed, annointed then the sacrifice was given..
second.. If we read john, we also see why, John was told that the one he saw the spirit come like a dove is the one who would baptise with the holy spirit.. And john saw and testified of those things..
Just like the people saw moses wash arron, thus they knew who the high priest was, John saw jesus washed, thus he could testify who he was.
Third, John said Jesus would baptise with the holy spirit and fire.. would we not rather be baptised this way than water?
as for the commission. Look at the order.. make disciples first.. in order to be a disciple you must be saved, then baptise them.. He did not say baptise in order to make them a disciple..
I am not denying water baptism.. God commands all to be baptised, I am denying this is essential for eternal life.
but I do not want to replace spirit baptism with water.
Matt: 3: 11- 12
11 I indeed baptize you
with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier
than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and fire.[b]12 His winnowing fan is
in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and
gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire.”What is a winnowing fan? it seperates wheat from chaff..
What does wheat represent? I believe it represents all who come to Christ, the barn represents heaven. It is the baptism of the holy spirit that places us into the barn ( body of Christ)
What happens to the chaff ( I believe those who never come to Christ, thus are lost ) they are baptised with fire.. which shall NEVER BE QUENCHED.. sounds alot like hell to me..
So what do we want to be baptised with? The holy spirit.. or fire??All of us will be baptized by Jesus.. Not all of us will like it..
Those of us who are baptised with the Holy spirit should be baptised in water.. as the first command.. burt water does not regenerate us..
Matthew C Jones said:Bryan Brodess said:why do people want to force water in this verse??
Probably the same reason they have a memorial called Communion. They place a symbolic value on a physical ritual.
FYI: I do not agree with my Pentecostal friends' interpretation.
Yeah I can see this.. I agree completely!
0 -
I have read along this thread and since the discussion is on Spirit Baptism, I hope no one minds me making a shameless plug. I have written two books on this topic outlining all the major viewsBryan Brodess said:but I do not want to replace spirit baptism with water.
"Promise Of The Father: Healing The Christian Legacy Of Segregation And Denominationalism"
and an analysis of all the major Scripture on this topic (along with a discussion of Jesus' water baptism and it relationship to the Saint)
"Have You Not Yet Received The Spirit?: Finding Unity Through The Baptism In The Holy Spirit"
Maybe someday I will get them published in Logos format :-), but until then if anyone is interested, you can get them from Amazon here
http://www.morethancake.org/my-books
Blessings!
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
If water baptism is not what 1 Cor 12 & Romans 6 are talking about what type of baptism are referenced? How does a believer go about joining to the body and the death, burial & resurrection?
I know this will offend the erudite theologians among us who insist on fragmenting everything into so many pieces that no one can understand or agree with anything or anyone, but for myself I like to keep things simple. There is ONE BAPTISM. Is it water, or is it Spirit? I believe the apostles saw baptism as one - either one is INCOMPLETE without the other. Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. They were baptized IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA. Is that not an Old Testament picture or type of New Testament baptism?
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
Dan Sheppard said:Peter Cellini said:
Maybe I'm just naive...I thought that Methodists, Dispensationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians were all protestants. Aren't we still protesting the RC church?
Another "biggie" for Lutherans is infant baptism. Not to argue, but to point out, the argument from a Lutheran point of view, is to look at circumcision. How old was Jesus when he was circumcised? Eight days. HOW would Jesus know the meaning of this, unless it was done when he was grown up? Answer: he was taught. Also, one of the verses to which we look, is Colossians 2:11-12. Obviously, the reference here being made, is Baptism to circumcision.
Well Dan... Wih all due respect, the flaw of the arguement you used here for infant baptism is that circumcision has never saved one Jew and baptism by water has never saved one Christian. All are saved by faith.... Circumcision is a sign of a covenant between Jews and God that is based on a racial identity which therefore can be applied to an infant. All Jews are Jews whether infants or adults. Water baptism is a ritual which demonstrates an inward work and decision of faith that an infant cannot possibly make. The two things cannot be compared in such a way or reconciled as such.
Logos 5, Windows & Android perfect together....
0 -
Alex Scott said:Matthew C Jones said:
If water baptism is not what 1 Cor 12 & Romans 6 are talking about what type of baptism are referenced? How does a believer go about joining to the body and the death, burial & resurrection?
I know this will offend the erudite theologians among us who insist on fragmenting everything into so many pieces that no one can understand or agree with anything or anyone, but for myself I like to keep things simple. There is ONE BAPTISM. Is it water, or is it Spirit? I believe the apostles saw baptism as one - either one is INCOMPLETE without the other. Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. They were baptized IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA. Is that not an Old Testament picture or type of New Testament baptism?
Hi Alex. Thanks for your respons. Not to argue with you. But I see that "one" baptism" differently..
Scripture speaks of many baptism.. The jews being baptised into the cloud with moses. The baptism of the robe of Christ when he returns to earth as it is baptized in blood, The ceremonial baptisms of the jews according to mosaic law. Holy spirit baptism, We have jesus being baptosed in water "johns baptism" and the baptism he spoke of later
Luke 12: 50 - 51 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.which he was seperating his water baptism from the true baptism he came to do ( he also later asked his disciples if they could share in this baptism, and said they would certainly share in it.. which we all have the ability (rom 6) because I think he is talking about his baptism into our redemption through his blood, the cross)
The author of Hebrews talks about Baptism in plural ( heb 6:2 although it is translated washings in some bibles, the word baptizo is used.)
The one baptism in eph I believe is speaking of the only baptism that counts towards our eternal destination. which would be Holy Spirit baptism, the rest of the baptism, although important, do not have a bearing on ones eternal destiny.. which is why Paul said there is only one that realy matters..
anyway, this is how I interpret eph 4: 5.. of all the different baptism,, there is only one that counts..
Hope I made sense!
0 -
KevinTaylor said:Dan Sheppard said:Peter Cellini said:
Maybe I'm just naive...I thought that Methodists, Dispensationalists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians were all protestants. Aren't we still protesting the RC church?
Another "biggie" for Lutherans is infant baptism. Not to argue, but to point out, the argument from a Lutheran point of view, is to look at circumcision. How old was Jesus when he was circumcised? Eight days. HOW would Jesus know the meaning of this, unless it was done when he was grown up? Answer: he was taught. Also, one of the verses to which we look, is Colossians 2:11-12. Obviously, the reference here being made, is Baptism to circumcision.
Well Dan... Wih all due respect, the flaw of the arguement you used here for infant baptism is that circumcision has never saved one Jew and baptism by water has never saved one Christian. All are saved by faith.... Circumcision is a sign of a covenant between Jews and God that is based on a racial identity which therefore can be applied to an infant. All Jews are Jews whether infants or adults. Water baptism is a ritual which demonstrates an inward work and decision of faith that an infant cannot possibly make. The two things cannot be compared in such a way or reconciled as such.
I agree
Col 2: 11 - 14
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which yyou were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.Paul makes it clear. Spiritual Circumcision, which represented cleansing to the jews, is done By god himself. Not the hands of men, Just like our spiritual baptism is done by the one who rose Christ from the dead, which is the holy spirit. and it is because of this spiritual cleansing that we are spirituallyu clean, why? because we shared in the death of Christ, and thus had the certificate of debt removed, and thus were passed from death to life ( spiritually thinking or in other words born again"
0 -
Alex Scott said:
There is ONE BAPTISM. Is it water, or is it Spirit? I believe the apostles saw baptism as one - either one is INCOMPLETE without the other. Read 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. They were baptized IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA. Is that not an Old Testament picture or type of New Testament baptism?
"There is ONE BAPTISM": What? Could it be so simple as "One Lord, one faith & one baptism"? - Ephesians 4:5
I only wish my Independent Baptist friends would understand my baptism is into Jesus Christ and I am part of his body, the church-at-large, not just a "member" of a small local congregation.I agree Alex. Acts 2:38 shows the two distinctives, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, seem to go hand in hand.
I guess the bottom line for me is I am saved by the grace of God and my works have nothing to do with my salvation outside of possibly being a sign that God has saved me. Good works counts for nothing towards salvation but salvation will result in good works. But just because I can not earn my salvation does not mean I should not perform good works to glorify God and be obedient to my Lord's commands. (Baptism, communion, giving, worshipping.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I agree Alex. Acts 2:38 shows the two distinctives, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, seem to go hand in hand.
Conserning acts 2; 38.. Repent is 2nd person, Baptise is 3rd.. Literally Peter is saying all of you repent, and let them be baptised.. how can we get around this?? who is them who are baptised so we can recieve the holy spirit?
Just a thought and question
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I guess the bottom line for me is I am saved by the grace of God and my works have nothing to do with my salvation outside of possibly being a sign that God has saved me. Good works counts for nothing towards salvation but salvation will result in good works. But just because I can not earn my salvation does not mean I should not perform good works to glorify God and be obedient to my Lord's commands. (Baptism, communion, giving, worshipping.)
Now this I agree with
Some people say I am anti baptism, communion which is far from the truth!!0 -
Bryan Brodess, for what it is worth i am with you on your understanding of Baptism.[Y] You have explained well what you mean by Baptism in different context in this thread. I am surprise that some will disagree with the various usage of Baptism( Water,Spirit,Fire, into Christ etc) & think it is all connected to Water Baptism.
I shall leave the Logos, RC, Calvin & Gospel debate to others - no further comment from me.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I knew that when Peter posted his initial comment that this would turn into a debate on water baptism! So typical...
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
I knew that when Peter posted his initial comment that this would turn into a debate on water baptism! So typical...
John are you a scholar or something? I am impressed with the way you present you case and argue logically and persuasively.[Y] I need to check your blog, i am glad you are a biblical Calvinist.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Well thanks, Ted. You're very gracious. (The thing about knowing Peter's post would lead to this is just a running joke that I have with myself.) I never write on the blog, although I frequently make promises to do so, and when I do I usually just make a fool of myself and regret it later.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
Well thanks, Ted. You're very gracious. (The thing about knowing Peter's post would lead to this is just a running joke that I have with myself.) I never write on the blog, although I frequently make promises to do so, and when I do I usually just make a fool of myself and regret it later.
Please may i encourage you to write on your blog. We definitely need more of your kind in these days of liberal nonsense being put out in the public domain.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
John Bowling said:
I knew that when Peter posted his initial comment that this would turn into a debate on water baptism! So typical...
Quite a prophet there, aren't you John? I don't know how else you could forsee an anti-Catholic statement about Logos base package content could veer into a debate among Protestants about water vs Spirit baptism. It did take 145 posts for us to sink this low. [6]
I do agree on one thing. It is very typical, and predictable for a bunch of preachers, theologians and academics to try and sway everyone to their own understanding by clever words. I mentioned the thread had gone off-topic but that didn't seem to slow down the Catholic bashing. All we should have done was offer Peter a truncated base package like John MacArthur Essential Bible Study Library (25 Vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/5833 .
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:John Bowling said:
I knew that when Peter posted his initial comment that this would turn into a debate on water baptism! So typical...
Quite a prophet there, aren't you John? I don't know how else you could forsee an anti-Catholic statement about Logos base package content could veer into a debate among Protestants about water vs Spirit baptism. It did take 145 posts for us to sink this low.
I do agree on one thing. It is very typical, and predictable for a bunch of preachers, theologians and academics to try and sway everyone to their own understanding by clever words. I mentioned the thread had gone off-topic but that didn't seem to slow down the Catholic bashing. All we should have done was offer Peter a truncated base package like John MacArthur Essential Bible Study Library (25 Vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/5833 .
This is why I think no one can talk about their beliefs. Since when is this catholic bashing? Are Catholics the only group that believe in water baptismal regeneration. Or the Eucharist?? I did not think so.. yet we are catholic bashing..
As I said before. If I was so insecure in my faith that anyone who apposed me I deemed as "bashing or protesting" my faith. I would have serious problems..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Repent is 2nd person, Baptise is 3rd.
My own personal opinion is that he was being very emphatic, "Repent and EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, let him be baptized" so that no one might think that the command was being fulfilled because they were having a massive baptismal service where a lot were being baptized but that you could opt out if you wanted. (Note that the 3rd person verb is singular)
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
why do people try to differentiate protestant theology from roman theology.
Those who try to do that are either uninformed or sloppy. However, there is a major theological division that imprecisely can be refered to as the Orthodox-Catholic-Lutheran-Anglican vs. everybody else. Loosely, this can be defined as historical-liturgical-sacramental-collective on one side and "not" on the other side. From your posts, I doubt that you really understand the historical-liturgical-sacramental-collective perspective, so it makes sense that the division would be murky for you. You need to go far further back in presuppositions than "salvic theology" to find the root differences.
And, as several of us have said many times, there is no such thing as "roman theology" - only Don Quixote could joist against that.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
Have never heard a non catholic who takes the eucharists viewpoint..
Really? That implies that you've never heard an Orthodox, a Lutheran (use different language but are substantially the same), many Anglicans, most Armenians, most of the Oriental Churches ... think about 75% of all current Christians ... and a higher percentage historically.
When, in an earlier post, I indicated that a historical-liturgical-sacramental-communal mind set was shared by these groups, one implication of that is that we are more apt to know where are doctrines are shared ... from 29 A.D. on. We've shared creeds, Scripture, Patristics - they all cross divisions within the whole with some emphasized here, de-emphasized there and some individuals being only "local". We may fight. We may excommunicate each other. We may fight wars over turf and otherwise act like spoiled children, but through it all we recognize that we all share some of the Truth - each, other course knowing they have the lion's share and the fighting is the other one's fault. [:D]
Unfortunately, when I try to understand the 25% or so that is ahistorical, nonliturgical, nonsacramental and individualistic, I keep getting thoroughly lost because "they" generally start so far from my starting point. I truly cannot converse meaningfully with you about theories of salvation if we don't start at more basic issues such as the role of Scripture, the role of worship, the role of teaching authority, the development of our understanding of those roles in the last 2000 years ... I find great hope in the fact that the Protestant side is taking a real interest in Pastristics. It is a major step forward in being able to talk to each other.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
The author of Hebrews talks about Baptism in plural ( heb 6:2 although it is translated washings in some bibles, the word baptizo is used.)
I think you will find that the basic word used here is different to the usual one used for baptism which never appears in the plural form. The word used here was commonly used for ceremonial washings.
Some years ago I was preparing a series of Foundational studies based on Hebrews 6. Up until that time I had always interpreted Hebrews 6 as meaning the various baptisms much as you described. When it became apparent to me that it was unreasonable to interpret it that way in light of the use of the word in the N.T. and outside of it, I was forced to look into the matter in more detail. Unfortunately this will lead to too long a post, but I think it might be simpler to quote from the study.
The meaning of ‘baptisms’ in Hebrews 6:2
Here we need to
draw a distinction between two words that have both been translated ‘baptism’ in some popular versions of the
Bible (KJV, NKJV,NIV). The word used
here in verse 2 is the plural form of the Greek word, BAPTISMOS. This word appears only three times in the New
Testament, but it is clear from its usage in Mark 7:4 and Hebrews 9:10 that its
meaning is ‘washings’, not primarily
baptisms as we understand them. By
contrast, the word consistently used for Christian baptism is BAPTISMA.
– a word used only in the New Testament and associated writings, only
with regard to baptism, and is never used in anything but the singular
form (see Ephesians 4:5).The intent of Hebrew 6:2
It seems clear then,
from the context of these verses, that the intent of the writer of
Hebrews was that all believers should be acquainted with the role of a number
of ‘washings’ as they pertain to
their Christian experience. In order
to accomplish this purpose it will be necessary to make some reference to the
Levitical washings in the Old Testament, and to the role of John the Baptist
and his baptism, as well as a detailed study of the meaning and purpose of
Christian baptism.....to the Jews who grew up with these ceremonies, and to
whom this letter was written, it was vitally important for them to know what
role these things had to play in their new Christian experience. Nor are they
without significance to us, for the ceremonies of the Old Testament foreshadow
the work of Christ in us. For
instance:Exodus 29
We have been
called to be a kingdom of priests (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation 1:6). This
chapter, (Exodus 29), lays out for us the manner in which the priests of the
Old Covenant were set apart and consecrated to God and His service. Note the following which has meaning as far
as our own Christian experience is concerned.First, they had
to be born into the family (John 1:13, 3:3). Then they were bathed by another,
Moses in this case (John 13:10; Titus 3:5).
This is the only time the priests were bathed by another. From then on it was their responsibility to cleanse
themselves at the laver for service (Ephesians 5:26). They were dressed in garments by Moses
(Galatians 3:27). They were sprinkled
with the blood of the sacrifice
(1 Peter 1:2) and with the same oil that had been poured out on
the High Priest (Acts 1:5).The next two passages were my attempt to give NT meaning to the OT rituals.
John 13:1-10
Look especially
at verse 10. Here is a very literal
rendering of the verse. “The one having been bathed has need only
to wash himself the feet.” Note
that the verb ‘bathe’ is in a passive
tense – this means that it is something that has been done for him. The second washing is in a middle or
reflexive tense meaning it is something the person does for himself. (Later in verses 12 and 14 he uses the same
verb in the active sense). Jesus’ words
here were very specifically chosen. The
first is the total cleansing that takes place at the commencement of the
Christian life, a once for all cleansing that is never repeated;
the second refers to the daily cleansing we must seek as we walk through
this world.Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26
There are
several additional passages of Scripture that deserve some comment before we
leave the study of the various washings.
The first two are found in Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26. In both these passages, the word washing is a noun form derived
from the verb LOO’O referred to earlier.
Both these passages are difficult and have been subject to a variety of
interpretations. The most satisfactory
explanation would seem to be that it is
the supernatural bath or washing done by the Spirit of God in the
life of the believer at some point around the conversion experience. In that sense it probably refers back to the
same experience as related by Jesus in John 13:10. In Titus 3:5, the washing is clearly
the work of the Spirit. Ephesians
5:26 finds its Old Testament counterpart in the purifying bath and
cleansing preparations of a bride about to be married and joined to a monarch
as found in Ezekiel 16 and 36 as well as alluded to in Esther 2, Psalm
45 and elsewhere.1 Corinthians
6:11 and Hebrews 10:22 are also worth looking at in the context of spiritual
washing.Again, I apologize for the lengthy post. However, this is not something I have ever encountered in my various researches, and I would appreciate your comments and criticisms.
[Edit: Just in case this might lead to too much discussion and effectively hijack the thread, you might want to respond to me at - akscottATkos dot net]
Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.
0
