Judy Taylor wrote:
To me it seems pretty logical that if God revealed his secrets to prophets in Bible times, he would continue doing so afterwards.....even unto this day. I have heard that some Christians believe the heavens are sealed though.....do you believe such? jt: No I don't and I'd like to point out that God is not bound by logic....DAVEH: My point is that baptism is not needed to go to paradise. Baptism is needed to go to heaven. Several TTers (including you) have used the "thief in paradise' example to prove me wrong. I am merely trying to defend my position from a Biblical standpoint by showing the inconsistency in their (your) argument.
DAVEH: It almost seems as though you are suggesting God can be illogical....
but you've still not come up with any incomprehensible mystery and what is revealed is for us and for our children
DAVEH: I'm still working on the easy one......viz., the thief going to paradise. :-)If you want to get into some deeper stuff, we can revisit the garden of eden.....
DAVEH: Hmmmmmm.......I thought my explanation of paradise qualifies as a 'mystery solved'. Or perhaps instead of it being a mystery, it was just a misunderstanding of how a specific passage of Scripture should be interpreted.
... God still hides things from folk who think themselves wise and prudent and reveals them to babes...
DAVEH: I agree. I fully understand it, and can support my belief from the Bible alone. I'm am awaiting somebody with a contrasting understanding to explain it differently using the events recorded in Scripture.DAVEH: I don't view the thief/paradise deal was hidden by God. IMO.....He plainly revealed it in the Bible, but it became a mystery to those who made assumptions based on other passages that were mysteries.jt: What are you talking about? Jesus went to Paradise before he ascended
DAVEH: Hmmmmm........then you agree.......paradise is not in heaven? Perhaps I misunderstood you before. (I thought you implied baptism was not a necessary component of salvation, and used the thief argument as evidence of your belief.)
and when he did ascend he took all the ppl in Paradise with him - those in Abraham's bosom that is. So your mathmetical exercise didn't change anything. In Matt 13:13,14,15 Jesus tells his disciples that he speaks in parables to hide things rather than to reveal them
DAVEH: LDS theology teaches we were all created by God as spirit children in heaven, which includes you, me, Jesus and Lucifer. Lucifer rebelled and became our "personal adversarys". <snip>DAVEH: That's part of it......But not the whole story. The Bible teaches much more, but it has been suppressed to make a 'simpler' theology work for many more people. While baptism in itself will not save anybody, I firmly believe without baptism, one cannot be saved. (Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5) jt: Who has been doing the suppressing Dave? Regeneration by baptism is NOT a scriptural teaching.
DAVEH: We haven't yet discussed it, so IF you wish to do so, I'll oblige. But first, please explain what you mean by "Regeneration", as it is a term we (LDS) do not often use.
DAVEH: The Bible clearly explains that baptism is an essential part of salvation. You and DavidM have been discussing such lately, and I don't feel the need to repeat his arguments.jt: So you are in agreement with DavidM about regenerational baptism then?
DAVEH: Until I know what you and DavidM define it, I can't say one way or the other. All I can tell you is what I understand the Bible says......and that is that without baptism, one cannot be fully saved. That is why I believe some of the early Christians practiced baptism for the dead. Otherwise, it would have not been necessary (in their eyes.)
I see.....DAVEH: However, I believe some passages (that DavidM does not necessarily accept) even clarify the point further. Jesus says in Jn 3:5......".....Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." .........To me, Judy, that passage is pretty self explanatory, unless one is compelled to think 'born of water' really means birth. Well in a sense it does symbolize birth.....a rebirth that is known as baptism. jt: Wrong - This is a rebirth that is impossible for anyone other than God Himself to perform and it does not refer to water baptism. John 3:5 speaks of being born of the Spirit or "Born Again." The water spoken of here is the water of God's Word which will also wash a person but then I realize I am wasting my time.
DAVEH: I'm sorry you feel that way, Judy. Your explanation of vs 5 is not the same as I have heard from DavidM, who believes "born of water" refers to a vaginal birth. (I assume I've got that right, DavidM?) So Judy, you have added another (divergent) element. Personally, I prefer my interpretation.....I don't believe you are interested in the Truth because you believe yourself to be so far ahead of most of us.
DAVEH: You have probably not been here long enough to know why I am here. You are right.....I am not in TT to learn "Truth". As I have previously stated numerous times, I am here to learn what Protestants believe, and why they believe it. Your interpretation of Jn 3:5 is a good example. I do not think your understanding represents "Truth". If I were to just accept what you believe about it, it would be in contradiction with what DavidM believes (I am presuming). But that doesn't really matter either, because I believe he also does not understand the true meaning of vs 5. So Judy.....in a sense, you are right about me believing my understanding of some of these Biblical passages "to be so far ahead of most of us". I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant, as I'm merely trying to honestly convey my thoughts and perspective in this exchange.
DAVEH: Once again I think you've made a false assumption, Judy. Unless you specifically ask for a quotation from other Latter-day revelation, I will base most all my comments I post to TT from the Bible. I use a KJV of the Bible, and accept is as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. jt: ... and where it is not translated correctly I suppose is where it conflicts with your extra biblical revelation
DAVEH: In the nearly 4 years I have been on TT, I don't recall ever using that reason as an excuse.
... God is not trying to make anything simpler for anybody. He says "I am the Lord, I change not" but we as believers are to love ppl and encourage them to repent and to seek Him with their whole heart. He deals with individuals. The thief who was forgiven on the cross went to Paradise without baptism.DAVEH: As I indicated at the beginning of this post....... that is another false assumption I believe you have made. I'd love to hear your rebuttal to my explanation (in a couple parallel posts.) jt: Your explanation doesn't change a thing. The thief went to Paradise with Jesus that very day ascended with the rest of the ppl in Abraham's bosom with Jesus when he ascended but he was in Paradise with him THAT DAY. What is the big revelation?
There were two parts of Paradise DaveH and the people Jesus preached to were the ones in Abraham's bosom ie: the righteous dead who had not as yet seen the Promise - the ones spoken of in Hebrews 11.... The rich man who wanted to warn his brothers not to come there was in the other part, the part that did NOT ascend with Jesus. Judy--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
