When developing your personal theology, and you all should be about this, don't you think you should be able to speak a verse, any verse, just as it is written?
And you say, "Duh, You really are not that smart, are you, Smithson !!"
And I say, "Oh yeah. Can you say and teach that water baptism saves us? I mean, that is what is what I Peter 3:21 says. Or do you have to explain it away, never to use I Peter 3:21 in your theological teaching . . . . . . . When was the last time you used 3:21, btw?"
On the other hand, can you accept those examples in Scripture, when water baptism was not preached, or do you have to explain that circumstance, rather than accepting the written word AS WRITTEN?
Me? I am thinking there is too much explaining going on, here.
Why do we preach, “Accept Christ as your personal savior” when, in point of fact, that phrase is not found in holy scripture? Does the fact that the phrase in question is not found scripture, does that fact mean the idea of receiving Christ as a personal savior is wrong or false? Maybe not. But is not the bible clear enough without adding our words to the event?
Here is James 2:24: "You see that man is justified by what he does and not by faith only." Can you teach this, as is, without making excuses.
Or, Romans 3:28: "We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law [of God]." Can you teach this or do you have to make excuses and explain it away?
We put believe, confess, hear, repent, receive or be baptized , in a particular order, in spite of the absolute fact that no such ordering of events can be found in the N.T. Sooo, God forgot about law and order? Seriously? We have to improve on the way He presented these events in holy scripture? Seriously?
Could it be that some folks only need to hear the demand to repent, or only to confess, or whatever? I mean, Christ did not give the rich young ruler a “count down,” did he? He only told him to go and sell all of his stuff. Thank Jesus that we do not need to do the same, right?
News flash: I was baptized long before I repented or confessed. Yet I believe my baptism was legit. It was 40 years later that I really and truly understood what Christ in my life was all about.
My point? Stop trying to recreate the biblical message so that it makes sense to you. Just read it and accept it AS WRITTEN. After all, if those are His words, why do you have the right to rearrange them?
Isn’t the arrangement inspired, also? If he didn’t use “receive Christ as your personal savior,” what gives you the right to use that phrase or criticize those who don’t?
In scripture, there is no such thing as a “senior pastor.” And I am not picking on senior pastors or “THE minister.” I am not saying that “senior pastor” is wrong. But I am asking, why do we think we need one, when the first church didn’t? God and the apostles hadn’t thought of it, yet?
Next time you read the message, read it as if for the first time. Accept it as it is written. I will bet that your “theology” will change. Could be a good thing.
And you say, "Duh, You really are not that smart, are you, Smithson !!"
And I say, "Oh yeah. Can you say and teach that water baptism saves us? I mean, that is what is what I Peter 3:21 says. Or do you have to explain it away, never to use I Peter 3:21 in your theological teaching . . . . . . . When was the last time you used 3:21, btw?"
On the other hand, can you accept those examples in Scripture, when water baptism was not preached, or do you have to explain that circumstance, rather than accepting the written word AS WRITTEN?
Me? I am thinking there is too much explaining going on, here.
Why do we preach, “Accept Christ as your personal savior” when, in point of fact, that phrase is not found in holy scripture? Does the fact that the phrase in question is not found scripture, does that fact mean the idea of receiving Christ as a personal savior is wrong or false? Maybe not. But is not the bible clear enough without adding our words to the event?
Here is James 2:24: "You see that man is justified by what he does and not by faith only." Can you teach this, as is, without making excuses.
Or, Romans 3:28: "We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law [of God]." Can you teach this or do you have to make excuses and explain it away?
We put believe, confess, hear, repent, receive or be baptized , in a particular order, in spite of the absolute fact that no such ordering of events can be found in the N.T. Sooo, God forgot about law and order? Seriously? We have to improve on the way He presented these events in holy scripture? Seriously?
Could it be that some folks only need to hear the demand to repent, or only to confess, or whatever? I mean, Christ did not give the rich young ruler a “count down,” did he? He only told him to go and sell all of his stuff. Thank Jesus that we do not need to do the same, right?
News flash: I was baptized long before I repented or confessed. Yet I believe my baptism was legit. It was 40 years later that I really and truly understood what Christ in my life was all about.
My point? Stop trying to recreate the biblical message so that it makes sense to you. Just read it and accept it AS WRITTEN. After all, if those are His words, why do you have the right to rearrange them?
Isn’t the arrangement inspired, also? If he didn’t use “receive Christ as your personal savior,” what gives you the right to use that phrase or criticize those who don’t?
In scripture, there is no such thing as a “senior pastor.” And I am not picking on senior pastors or “THE minister.” I am not saying that “senior pastor” is wrong. But I am asking, why do we think we need one, when the first church didn’t? God and the apostles hadn’t thought of it, yet?
Next time you read the message, read it as if for the first time. Accept it as it is written. I will bet that your “theology” will change. Could be a good thing.
