Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
My current comments in red below. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 2:41 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. DAVEH: Yes indeed.Paul knew that something was extremely wrong. Had they been baptized by John, they would have known about the HG..[2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.[3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.[4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus..so it seems apparent that John's baptism had nothing to do with their baptism, otherwise they would have known about him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. IOWThey weren't properly baptized. Unlike Jesus, these guys had been baptized by a counterfeit John. Hence the need for Paul to baptize them again. I have problems with your line of thinking here, Dave. John's baptism did not involve faith in Jesus Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit. John indeed had testified about one who was coming that would baptize them with the Holy Ghost, but his baptism did not lead them to hope to receiving the Holy Spirit. It only made them ready to believe upon Messiah by causing them to repent of their sins. Baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and John's baptism are two different things. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance with a hope that Messiah would soon come. Christ's baptism was a baptism of repentance and also a placing of the person into the body of Christ, with a hope of receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. I think that all those baptized by John, were later rebaptized by the apostles of Christ, as they came to believe upon him as their Messiah. DaveH wrote: FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and didnot need rebaptism.I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? DAVEH: I believe John had the proper authority to baptize (witness Jesus' baptism), yet those who Paul baptized thought they had been baptized unto John's baptism, but the fact that they had really NOT been baptized unto John's baptism meant that their first baptism was ineffectiveunlike Jesus' baptism which was proper and effective. Does that make sense? I think that I understand what you are saying, but I'm not in agreement with it. There was nobody else that I am aware of who ministered baptism like John and the apostles of Jesus Christ. The baptisms in Judaism were more ritualistic like that found in Islam. There was no call for repentance followed by baptism. I assume that Paul was probably first approached by these Ephesians. They probably discussed withPaulthe concept of John's gospel message and the baptism that it entailed. Paul evidentally came to understand that these were baptized disciples waiting for Messiah's return.John the Baptist's message and baptism is very similar to that of Christ's. When he asked them if they had received the promise of the Holy Ghost, and they said they had not heard of the Holy Ghost, then he realized that their baptism was not unto Christ, so he asked, what then were you baptized unto? They said, "unto John's baptism." Paul never questioned that, but rather it told him what he needed to know. They had not yet heard the full gospel. So Paul explained to them thatJohn had foretold that they should believe on him that would come after him. Well, that person who came after hime was Jesus Christ. The Messiah they were waiting for had come already.Now these disciples were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. So I can't see where these Ephesians had not been baptized by John the Baptist. Is there some extra-biblical revelation in Mormonism that teaches this? David Miller. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about Je
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. DAVEH: Yes indeed.Paul knew that something was extremely wrong. Had they been baptized by John, they would have known about the HG.. [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. .so it seems apparent that John's baptism had nothing to do with their baptism, otherwise they would have known about him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. IOWThey weren't properly baptized. Unlike Jesus, these guys had been baptized by a counterfeit John. Hence the need for Paul to baptize them again. DaveH wrote: FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? DAVEH: I believe John had the proper authority to baptize (witness Jesus' baptism), yet those who Paul baptized thought they had been baptized unto John's baptism, but the fact that they had really NOT been baptized unto John's baptism meant that their first baptism was ineffectiveunlike Jesus' baptism which was proper and effective. Does that make sense? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about Jesus Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now faith could operate. Before, faith could not operate because they had never heard of Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Notice that nowhere in the passage does Paul say, "who baptized you." The question was, "have you received the Holy Ghost." The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, because they had never received that kind of baptism. Their faith previously was in what John preached. Now their faith was in the person of Jesus Christ. DaveH wrote: These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. They did not have faith in Jesus Christ. They had faith that God was bringing the kingdom of God to them and so they were baptized unto repentance. DaveH wrote: After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? David Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
it does illustrate how God might accept a person even if the signature did not get down on paper (they were never baptized). DAVEH: As you know, it is my opinion that baptism is necessary for salvation, as evidenced by Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5. I believe God may not accept a person (they were never baptized), as may be evidenced by Mt 7:21...which suggests God may not be as accepting as some Christians think. But we've covered that ground beforeso, no need to continue this thread further. Thanx for your comments to this point, DavidM. David Miller wrote: The problem with oral contracts is proving them. A will in particular is difficult because the person is dead. If an oral contract can be established, it is considered binding. With God, both parties know their agreement. This does not mean that nobody needs to sign the contract so-to-speak (be baptized), but it does illustrate how God might accept a person even if the signature did not get down on paper (they were never baptized). David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. DAVEH: That is not necessarily true, DavidM. Real estate contracts are a real world exception. And I suspect that wills are probated without contradicting the recorded documents, despite any subsequent verbal changes that are claimed. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
With the Father in heaven. DAVEH: Hmm...I did not expect that to be your answer. it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. DAVEH: Yes. From our previous discussions, you may remember that I view the rebaptism by Paul... Acts.19 [1] And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. [7] And all the men were about twelve. as evidence that a proper baptism is essential. It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. David Miller wrote: DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? With the Father in heaven. John the Baptist was a forerunner of the new convenant that would come through Jesus. His baptism prepared the way by helping people understand the elements of entering into this new covenant. Therefore, his stewardship had an authority which the Father expected all men to parake of. Jesus, as a man, partook of it also, that he might fulfill all righteousness. He aligned himself with the testimony and ministry of John that came from the Father above, and that is a covenant. DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? Yes, and I view my comments as details concerning that phrase, "to fulfill all righteousness." It created a public testimony of alignment and participation of the covenant that comes through John for all who would heed the preaching of the gospel to repent, because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Of course, the covenant of Christ far superseded John's covenant, coming with it the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. John's covenant was temporary, making way for a more perfect one through Jesus Christ. In regards to baptism, it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. I see it to be more important that the one being baptized has faith. One who has faith in baptism causes the miracle of the new birth as a result of faith being applied. However, if one is baptized and does not really have faith, but only mental assent, then he does not experience the new birth, even if the authority of the one baptizing him was from God. Does this properly characterize our differences about baptism from your perspective? David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. DAVEH: That is not necessarily true, DavidM. Real estate contracts are a real world exception. And I suspect that wills are probated without contradicting the recorded documents, despite any subsequent verbal changes that are claimed. David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
The problem with oral contracts is proving them. A will in particular is difficult because the person is dead. If an oral contract can be established, it is considered binding. With God, both parties know their agreement. This does not mean that nobody needs to sign the contract so-to-speak (be baptized), but it does illustrate how God might accept a person even if the signature did not get down on paper (they were never baptized). David Miller. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract.DAVEH: That is not necessarily true, DavidM. Real estate contracts are a real world exception. And I suspect that wills are probated without contradicting the recorded documents, despite any subsequent verbal changes that are claimed.David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about Jesus Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now faith could operate. Before, faith could not operate because they had never heard of Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Notice that nowhere in the passage does Paul say, who baptized you. The question was, have you received the Holy Ghost. The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, because they had never received that kind of baptism. Their faith previously was in what John preached. Now their faith was in the person of Jesus Christ. DaveH wrote: These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. They did not have faith in Jesus Christ. They had faith that God was bringing the kingdom of God to them and so they were baptized unto repentance. DaveH wrote: After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, it being a covenant. Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Again, thanx for the explanation. Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? baptism has other purposes as well, DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? With the Father in heaven. John the Baptist was a forerunner of the new convenant that would come through Jesus. His baptism prepared the way by helping people understand the elements of entering into this new covenant. Therefore, his stewardship had an authority which the Father expected all men to parake of. Jesus, as a man, partook of it also, that he might fulfill all righteousness. He aligned himself with the testimony and ministry of John that came from the Father above, and that is a covenant. DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? Yes, and I view my comments as details concerning that phrase, to fulfill all righteousness. It created a public testimony of alignment and participation of the covenant that comes through John for all who would heed the preaching of the gospel to repent, because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Of course, the covenant of Christ far superseded John's covenant, coming with it the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. John's covenant was temporary, making way for a more perfect one through Jesus Christ. In regards to baptism, it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. I see it to be more important that the one being baptized has faith. One who has faith in baptism causes the miracle of the new birth as a result of faith being applied. However, if one is baptized and does not really have faith, but only mental assent, then he does not experience the new birth, even if the authority of the one baptizing him was from God. Does this properly characterize our differences about baptism from your perspective? David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: As you probably know, I associate baptism with such a covenant. How do you perceive it? Yes, I view it the same way. However, I view baptism as the standard expression of faith for ratifying the covenant, not as the only way of ratifying the covenant. In fact, baptism without faith, in my opinion, does not ratify the person's covenant with God at all. They are just taking a bath in such a case. DaveH wrote: ... do you know if many Protestants believe in personal covenants relating to salvation as well? Yes, many do understand covenants and their personal covenant with Christ. Even those who do not use the word covenant are basically talking about the same thing when they talk about the need for a person to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Thanx for explaining this, DavidM. It does bring up another question though. What other (other than baptism) ways do you see as ratifying the covenant? David Miller wrote: DAVEH: As you probably know, I associate baptism with such a covenant. How do you perceive it? Yes, I view it the same way. However, I view baptism as the standard _expression_ of faith for ratifying the covenant, not as the only way of ratifying the covenant. In fact, baptism without faith, in my opinion, does not ratify the person's covenant with God at all. They are just taking a bath in such a case. DaveH wrote: ... do you know if many Protestants believe in personal covenants relating to salvation as well? Yes, many do understand covenants and their personal covenant with Christ. Even those who do not use the word covenant are basically talking about the same thing when they talk about the need for a person to have "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." David Miller
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: What other (other than baptism) ways do you see as ratifying the covenant? Well, in the case of Abraham, there was a blood covenant. So that would be one other way there. With Jacob, there was wrestling with God. In terms of coming into a relationship with Jesus, the waters of baptism are what I lead a person to in order to establish their covenant with Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, if a person were for some reason kept from that, there are other things that can be done to help that person apply faith in Jesus Christ. There was a man in a nursing home that I shared Christ with, and he came to a point where he wanted to be baptized. There were logistic problems with the nursing home and family member concerns because he was nearing death. Before we could make it happen, he passed away. At that time, we had only prayed with him and helped him to commit to giving his heart to Christ through prayer. I believe and understand that God honors that profession of faith. In my own life, my parents did not consider me old enough at 5 years old to be baptized and understand what I was doing. So although I desired to be baptized and asked to be baptized, I was denied. This did not hinder the work of God in my life, when at the age of 8 Jesus baptized me with the Holy Spirit. When my parents saw that happen, they realized that I was indeed old enough to be baptized in water, and so I was at age 9. The household of Cornelius seemed to have a similar experience, entering into a covenant with God and receiving the Holy Spirit by faith, even before they had been baptized in water. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Once again, I thank you for your thoughtful answer, DavidM. Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? (A short answer is acceptableno need to elaborate.) David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: What other (other than baptism) ways do you see as ratifying the covenant? Well, in the case of Abraham, there was a blood covenant. So that would be one other way there. With Jacob, there was wrestling with God. In terms of coming into a relationship with Jesus, the waters of baptism are what I lead a person to in order to establish their covenant with Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, if a person were for some reason kept from that, there are other things that can be done to help that person apply faith in Jesus Christ. There was a man in a nursing home that I shared Christ with, and he came to a point where he wanted to be baptized. There were logistic problems with the nursing home and family member concerns because he was nearing death. Before we could make it happen, he passed away. At that time, we had only prayed with him and helped him to commit to giving his heart to Christ through prayer. I believe and understand that God honors that profession of faith. In my own life, my parents did not consider me old enough at 5 years old to be baptized and understand what I was doing. So although I desired to be baptized and asked to be baptized, I was denied. This did not hinder the work of God in my life, when at the age of 8 Jesus baptized me with the Holy Spirit. When my parents saw that happen, they realized that I was indeed old enough to be baptized in water, and so I was at age 9. The household of Cornelius seemed to have a similar experience, entering into a covenant with God and receiving the Holy Spirit by faith, even before they had been baptized in water. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 00:16 Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? Yes. David Miller -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham. Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation?
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: My comment about Abraham in a parallel post is an example of personal covenants. Is this concept foreign to Protestants? Lance Muir wrote: Please expand on 'personal covenant' DH. Subject: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Well.with Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation?
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: You are losing me with that comment, Lance. Do you not believe the Lord makes personal covenants with individuals? Lance Muir wrote: Well.with Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham. Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
No - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 10:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: You are losing me with that comment, Lance. Do you not believe the Lord makes personal covenants with individuals?Lance Muir wrote: Well.with Israel.through Abraham...Oh Oh it's the unilateral covenant things one more time. - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 09:47 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made personal covenants with Abraham.Lance Muir wrote: Who other than Israelites? - Original Message - From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 23, 2006 01:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: As you probably know, I associate baptism with such a covenant. How do you perceive it? (The covenant, that is.) And, do you know if many Protestants believe in personal covenants relating to salvation as well? (My guess is that they don't, and that you may be the odd duck on this onebut, I'm just guessingI'll be interested in hearing your perspective if you have time to share it.) David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? Yes. David Miller -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation?-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: The Lord made covenants with groups of people (Israelites, for instance). I was trying to distinguish that kind of (group) covenant with that of a personal covenant that the Lord would make with an individual. Does that make sense, John? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe. Exactly what is a personal covenant, DH? jd -- Original message -- From: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] DAVEH: I would appreciate hearing from any TTers who would like to share their thoughts with me about the relationship between personal covenants and salvation. Do you feel that there is a personal covenant associated with salvation? -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
